The Supreme Court has dismissed a suit challenging the constitutionality of the Human and Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill also known as the anti-LGBTQ bill.
The suit filed by broadcast journalist and lawyer Richard Dela Sky sought a declaration that the bill was null and void.
He argues that it violates several provisions of the 1992 Constitution, including Articles 33(5), 12(1) and (2), 15(1), 17(1) and (2), 18(2), and 21(1)(a)(b)(d) and (e).
He believes that the passage of the bill would impose a charge on the Consolidated Fund or other public funds of Ghana.
However, a seven-member panel led by Justice Avril Lovelace Johnson unanimously rejected the petition, stating the suit failed to invoke its jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the Constitution properly.
The court also held that the bill had not yet been enacted into law and, as such, the suits were premature.
If assented to, the bill would impose penalties on individuals who promote or fund LGBTQI-related activities and those who provide indirect support for such initiatives.
The bill sparked significant debate, with proponents arguing that protecting Ghanaian cultural and family values is crucial, which they claim are under threat from foreign ideologies.
Human rights activists and other individuals have described it as a violation of fundamental human rights, including freedoms of expression, association, and equality under the law.
In addition to Mr Sky’s petition, equality and inclusion advocate Amanda Odoi also filed a separate legal challenge.
Both Amanda Odoi and Richard Sky argue that Parliament had failed to meet the quorum requirements outlined in Articles 102 and 104 of the Constitution during the legislative process, which they claimed rendered the bill’s passage unconstitutional.
Their petitions sought to have the bill declared invalid on these grounds.
However, the Supreme Court dismissed both petitions.