Rev. Fordjour stated that the controversial bill played a pivotal role in the 2024 elections and significantly influenced the New Patriotic Party’s (NPP) performance.

He noted that Mahama’s campaign promise to sign the bill contributed to his electoral success, and Ghanaians expect him to fulfill that commitment without delay.

“It is shocking that just six days after taking office, Mahama is telling the Catholic Bishops that the bill is no longer necessary. This is a clear betrayal of the promises he made to Ghanaians,” Rev. Fordjour said in an interview with Okay FM.

His comments follow President Mahama’s recent proposal to reintroduce the bill as a government-sponsored initiative rather than proceeding with the current private member’s bill. Speaking during a meeting with the Catholic Bishops Conference in Accra on January 14, 2025, President Mahama explained that a government-backed bill would ensure broader national consensus and legitimacy.

However, Rev. Fordjour, one of the bill’s key promoters, firmly opposed this shift, warning that failure to sign the bill could damage Mahama’s credibility.

“If he refuses to sign the bill and instead shifts focus to a curriculum-based approach, Ghanaians will judge him accordingly. The NPP will continue to push for this bill to become law,” he declared.

Rev. Fordjour also emphasized the Supreme Court’s ruling that the bill does not violate individual rights, affirming its constitutionality. He further stated that the bill, developed through extensive stakeholder consultations, would be reintroduced in Parliament if the President fails to assent.

“The NPP has always maintained its position on this issue. Even Dr. Bawumia, as Vice President, affirmed he would sign the bill if elected President. Now, Mahama, with a majority in Parliament, wants to backtrack. Ghanaians will not accept this,” he concluded.

ALSO READ:

• Catholic Bishops urge Mahama to fast-track Anti-LGBT+ Bill

• Mahama proposes government sponsorship for Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill

Mr Sky is challenging the constitutionality of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, and he is seeking a declaration that the bill passed by Parliament breaches several provisions of the 1992 constitution and violates the country’s laws and the fundamental human rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Dr Odoi has raised concerns about specific provisions in the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill.

She is also seeking a restraining order to prevent the Speaker, the Attorney General, and the Clerk of Parliament from sending the bill to President Akufo-Addo for his approval.

The Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo, announced to the court that the two cases would not be consolidated, and separate rulings would be delivered

This decision followed a request by the Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame

Counsel for Amanda Odoi, Dr Ernest Ackon, argued that the bill, if approved, imposes a direct charge on public funds, violating Article 108. He also pointed out the lack of a fiscal impact analysis before the bill was sent to the President.

The Attorney-General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, the second respondent, argued that the Speaker’s discretion is not unconstrained by the constitution, hence warranting the apex court’s decision on the injunction application.

Plaintiff, Dr. Amanda Odoi seeks an injunction to stop the Speaker from transmitting the bill to the President.

The first Defendant on the case led by Counsel for the Speaker of Parliament Thaddeus Sory on his part, argued that the claims of the applicant regarding the need for a fiscal impact analysis were not supported by the constitution especially when the bill did not expressly say it will impose a charge on the consolidated fund.

According to him, the substance of the interlocutory injunction was not significantly different from a previous one filed by the plaintiffs and dismissed by the courts

He further argued that the transmission of the bill from the Speaker of Parliament to the President for him to assent is still an ongoing process that hasn’t been completed and, hence wasn’t within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to deliberate on the matter.

He called on the court to dismiss the application before the bench.

The Supreme Court, chaired by Her Ladyship Gertrude Torkonoo, is currently hearing the Richard Dela Sky case.

READ ALSO:

• I never went through JHS – Prof Gyampo
• Accra flooded after Wednesday downpour [Photos+Videos]
• Chef Smith did not submit any application to us – Guinness World Records

Mr Dafeamekpor is worried that there may be implications if the eighth Parliament is dissolved before the hearing ends.

The Apex Court on Wednesday adjourned the case sine die, citing that the documents submitted by the lawyers of the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, contained intemperate language.

The court therefore directed the legal team to file new documents.

However, Mr. Dafeamekpor has asserted that considering the interest of the public in the case, a specific date should have been given by the court.

“I got worried by the adjournment sine die on grounds that matters such as these that have high public interest and also being heard pursuant to a specific request. The court ordinarily would have adjourned to a specific date, then give a timeline to parties who have been directed by the court to file processes to do so,” he told Accra-based Citi FM. 

Mr Dafeamekpor also argued that, after the third reading of a bill in Parliament, it is considered complete per the procedure outlined under Article 106 of the Constitution.

“It depends on the interpretation displayed on what constitutes the bill. A bill for me is cooked when Parliament passes it. There is an interim procedure between when it is passed by parliament after the third reading and the procedure outlined under Article 106 in the constitution,” he explained. 

ALSO READ:

• Supreme Court adjourns anti-LGBTQI bill case indefinitely

• Anti-Gay bill: Supreme Court grants Richard Sky’s request to amend suit

During hearing on Wednesday, May 8, 2024, the Apex court held that, the documents submitted by the lawyers of the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin contained intemperate language.

The court therefore directed the legal team to file new documents.

Before the adjournment, the court dismissed a preliminary objection raised by the Speaker’s lawyer, Thaddeus Sory.

The lawyers for the plaintiff, broadcast journalist, Richard Sky had sought to amend one of the reliefs in the motion for injunction but Mr Sory objected.

After deliberation, the Apex Court, chaired by Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo, ruled that the preliminary objection was unnecessary.

Justice Torkornoo said each party has the right to present their case as they see fit and reprimanded the Speaker’s team, stating, “You have wasted our time and energy for no reason.”

Journalist, Richard Sky and Researcher, Amanda Odoi filed separate suits against the bill, which awaits an assent from President Nana Akufo-Addo.

Mr Sky argues that, Parliament’s passage of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill is unconstitutional and praying the highest court to declare the bill null and void.

Dr Odoi, has also expressed reservations about some provisions of the new bill.

ALSO READ:

• Parliament seeks clarification from Presidency on Anti-LGBTQI+ bill transmission

Although Parliament passed the anti-LGBTQ+ bill in February 2024, the bill has faced setbacks, with the President citing his inability to sign it due to a legal challenge.

Speaking JoyNews, the President of the Ghana Baptist Convention, Rev Dr Charles Ampofo emphasised the church’s opposition to the act.

He maintained that, President Akufo-Addo should sign the bill, as the concept of LGBTQ is unacceptable in the country.

“The issue of LGBTQ and others is a very crucial thing to us, not because we love it, but because we hate it. We don’t want to apply our lives to the Bible, but the Bible teaches us how to live and we believe that the Bible instructs us and directs us to live, it ordains that is a male to a female and a female to a male, that’s all that we know. Anything outside that for me and for Ghana Baptist Convention is anti-bible.

You know this bill has been passed and I believe it rests with the President. We are praying that this bill would be signed so that it will be a law,” he said.  

ALSO READ:

• One man demo hits anti-LGBTQI+ Bill [Video]

• Anti-LGBTQI+ bill: Assent when Akufo-Addo travels – Dafeamekpor tells Bawumia

The lawmaker who has filed a case to compel President Akufo-Addo to sign the controversial bill said this will determine whether or not indeed, he [Bawumia] is against homosexuality.

He made the call in a post on X formerly Twitter as he shared a video in which the New Patriotic Party (NPP) flagbearer publicly declared his opposition to LGBTQ+ activities.

“In this video, Alhaji Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia, our Veep, is heard and seen saying that by our cultural ethos and his Muslim beliefs, he is against LGBTQ+. Fantastic.

“I expect our Veep to sign the Bill into law when next the Prez travels and he acts as the Head of State. That’s all,” he wrote.

Addressing thousands of Muslims at the Kumasi central Mosque during the observation of Eid prayers on Thursday, Dr Bawumia said he cannot support a practice his religion and the values of Ghana frown on.

This is Dr Bawumia’s first public declaration on the matter after several calls for him to state his position on the controversial issue.

Meanwhile, spokesperson for the National Chief Imam, Sheikh Aremeyaw Shaibu has lauded Vice President Dr Mahamudu Bawumia for taking a firm stance against the controversial Anti-LGBTQ+ bill.

According to him, both the Islamic and Christian communities oppose the practice of LGBTQ+. Therefore, he is excited that someone in a position of leadership had taken a clear stance on the issue.

ALSO READ:

• Bawumia finally declares stance on LGBTQI+

• Anti-LGBTQI+ Bill: Your stance is belated; people have moved on – Prof. Kobby Mensah…

Read the post below:

In this video, Alhaji Dr. Mahmoud Bawumia, our Veep, is heard and seen saying that by our cultural ethos and his Muslim beliefs, he is against LGBTQ+. Fantastic.

I expect our Veep to sign the Bill into law when next the Prez travels and he acts as the Head of State. That’s all pic.twitter.com/FAK9yrY4Sy

— Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, Esq. MP. (@etsedafeamekpor) April 11, 2024

According to her, people who engage in LGBTQ practices do so despite facing hate and discrimination because they perceive love in a different way from others.

After nearly three years of deliberation, Parliament finally passed the highly contentious Anti-LGBTQ+ bill.

The bill, introduced in the House years ago, was unanimously approved on Wednesday, February 28, following the completion of the third reading.

The bill was then slated to be forwarded to President Akufo-Addo for his assent.

But speaking on JoyNews’ AM Show, Mrs. Dzogbenuku argued that it is not right to pass laws that restrict people from living their lives as they choose.

“So, this is not when we should be thinking about jailing them for their choices; this is when we should be thinking about how we remedy that.

“There are so many circumstances under which people become or choose to be LGBTQ, but ultimately each of them is doing it because of something they want, which will make them feel loved, have affection, or be accepted, and for some of these people, that is the only time they have felt accepted.

“So let us not jump to the symptoms of it. Let us look at the causes”, she stressed.

Mrs. Dzogbenuku said people must also learn to understand what drives others to engage in LGBTQ relationships.

She explained that each person’s experience is different, and there are many reasons why someone might make that choice to engage in LGBTQ activities.

The former presidential candidate emphasized that it is wrong to describe people as abnormal just because they are part of the LGBTQ community.

“You make the choice of who you want to date or marry based on different things; what you would choose is not what I would choose, and if we actually take time to understand them and see why they made this choice and address those issues informing their choices, maybe we could be a bit more compassionate and sympathetic.”

ALSO READ:

• Bawumia finally declares stance on LGBTQI+

• Methodist Church to lobby Akufo-Addo for expedited assent to Anti-LGBTQI+ bill

The experienced politician claimed on Joy News’ PM Express on Wednesday, April 10, that it was not a mere coincidence that the President could refer to a lawsuit that was yet to be filed as the basis for his decision not to sign the bill.

By this, the former NDC General Secretary concluded that the President was part of the plan to frustrate the anti-LGBTQI+ bill from becoming law.

“It is clearly an excuse and it’s a wrong excuse because he [President Akufo-Addo] was citing the court case even before anybody could file it. It tells you that he [President Akufo-Addo] orchestrated the filing.”

As at the time the President spoke, nobody had gone to court. If there’s an intention to file and the person has not filed, how do you restrain yourself over that? So, it means that you don’t want to do something but you want an excuse to cite not to do it. Because if you have heard that somebody is going to court, the person has not gone to court and yet you are injuncting yourself, then it means that you’re part of an orchestration to go to court in the first place.”

Based on this, Mr Asiedu Nketia said, “I don’t trust in the independent-mindedness of whoever that filed the process.”

Pointing to the private legal practitioner cum journalist Richard Dela Sky who filed the suit, the NDC Chair suggested that he was in bed with the government.

“Who doesn’t know the Citi FM man, Richard Sky? Richard Sky works in the chamber of the Attorney-General, and he was sponsored to do his law course by this government. And the man has returned and he’s working with the Majority Leader. There’s circumstantial evidence and that’s my belief.

When the host drew his attention to the wild claims, the NDC Chair insisted that he was privy to those details about the plaintiff and had evidence to back them.

The NDC National Chairman is particularly disappointed that the President asked parliament not to transmit the bill to him.

“I am on the side of Parliament because the President has no reason to ask that Parliament should not submit the bill because the cases that are in court, the last time I checked, there’s no application for an injunction or any actual injunction granted that prevents the President from receiving the bill.

The only application for an injunction that I have seen is to block the President from signing the bill. Receiving and signing are different things. So, if you don’t want to receive the bill, you don’t blame anyone who has gone to court because the reliefs being sought in court do not border on you not receiving. They say don’t work on it. But for the office receiving it, it’s a matter of impunity that is being shown by the President to frustrate the work of parliament” he argued.

Mr Asiedu Nketia believes the President does not want to sign the bill but simply lacks the courage to state that clearly.

“Because parliament has done their work up to a point, and they say to transmit this to the President. You don’t have the right not to receive. You can receive it, and after receiving it, you have options that have been provided under the constitution.

And somebody is in court trying to injunct you from acting on the bill; that injunction does not say don’t receive the bill. So, for you to write to parliament that because I am on some injunction not to sign it, don’t bring it at all, it means you have a pre-meditated agenda. You don’t want to receive it or work on it or do anything with it, but you are not man enough to tell Ghanaians that I don’t want to do it” he noted.

Meanwhile, Ghana’s Supreme Court is yet to sit on the case filed against the bill.

ALSO READ:

• Parliament seeks clarification from Presidency on Anti-LGBTQI+ bill transmission

• Anti-LGBTQI+ bill: Parliament petitions Chief Justice to expediate hearing

He said the Bill, popularly known as Anti Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning and more (Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill) has been overwhelmingly endorsed by majority of Ghanaians and there was no need for further delay. 

“The whole Parliament of Ghana has unanimously passed this Bill, so more than 95 per cent of Ghanaians are saying that we don’t want to promote this kind of life (LGBTQ+), what more clarity do we need?” he questioned. 

Speaking on the passion of Jesus Christ as part of the celebration of Easter at the Sacred Heart Cathedral Parish, Bolgatanga, Most Rev. Agyenta said Pontius Pilate handed Jesus Christ over to be crucified even though he knew he was innocent.

He said it was fear that compelled Pilate to succumb to the demands of the high priests and those who wanted Jesus Christ to be crucified and urged the President not to succumb to “those voices probably convincing him against assenting to the Bill”. 

“I have been wondering whether our President is not in the shoes of Pilate because he knows that the decision of Parliament is the mind of all Ghanaians and yet some people are telling him not to sign this bill because there will be consequences.”  

He urged the President to assent to the Bill because the whole of Ghana was behind him.  

On spirituality, the bishop explained that although the pursuit for money was good as it would help to undertake certain projects necessary for development, one should not prioritise material needs over spiritual growth.  

He, therefore, warned Christians, particularly Catholics, to desist from placing monetary values on sacred items such as holy water and anointing oil. 

“We all need money but you cannot put value on sacred things because the rule of the church is that the salvation of all is more important than anything we are able to do with money…” 

He explained that the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ was a reminder for Christians to reflect and accept that they were sinners and ask for strength to desist from evil acts.

ALSO READ:

• Methodist Church to lobby Akufo-Addo for expedited assent to Anti-LGBTQI+ bill

• Anti-LGBTQI+ bill: Parliament petitions Chief Justice to expediate hearing

The petitioners highlighted precedence in the recent hearing of MP for South Dayi, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor’s case against the approval of President Akufo-Addo’s ministerial nominees.

The petition is dated Friday, March 28, 2024 and signed by Parliament’s legal representatives Sory@Law.

It stressed the public interest in these cases and the need for a prompt resolution to ease tensions among Ghanaians.

“It will accordingly be appreciated if the parties are given a very early date to expedite the hearing of the applications pending before the Court. We trust that as the applications raise matters of public interest, you will give our letter the attention it deserves.”

The petition specifically referenced ongoing lawsuits filed by Richard Dela Sky and Dr. Amanda Odoi, both challenging the anti-gay bill on grounds of constitutional violations of homosexual rights.

ALSO READ:

• Refrain from transmitting anti-LGBTQI+ bill to Akufo-Addo – Presidency to Parliament

• Anti-LGBTQI+: Parliament will not allow any delay on bill passage- Speaker

Currently, there is an impasse over the transmission of the Bill from Parliament to the Presidency. 

The President halted the transmission of the anti-gay bill, while the Speaker of Parliament suspended the approval of new ministerial nominees citing a court case.

This deadlock has left many Ghanaians disheartened, questioning why two organs of state cannot work together to safeguard the country’s values and cultural systems.

In a media interview, Reverend Matthew Kwasi Gyamfi, President of the Ghana Catholic Bishops’ Conference, emphasised the need for both the Executive and Legislature to collaborate in the public interest. 

He stated that the Bill is supported by the majority of Ghanaians and urged President Akufo-Addo to respect the decision of the people as expressed by their representatives in Parliament.

“We’re surprised that at this time the President has not signed it yet. People can go and make their cases anywhere, anytime but as to whether the President should listen to Supreme Court orders of some individuals’ presentations, before he assents or not we don’t know if the law provides for that.”

“When this law has come from the people and it has been passed by Parliament, I do not find any basis the President will stand on it and say he will not assent to the Bill.”

“We call on them to do what is law, what the Constitution provides because they are making all of us worried. This one is a novelty, that is why we are not sure whether there’s a provision for that. If there’s no provision why should the President wait,” Reverend Gyamfi quizzed. 

ALSO READ:

Alleged assault: Bongo Ideas opens up [Video]

Stonebwoy dazzles at 2023 African Games closing ceremony

Funny Face involved in gory accident [Photos+Video]

The chief who doubles as a High Court Judge and the President of the Bono Regional House of Chiefs made this remarks at the Sumaman Akwantukɛse Festival at Suma Ahenkuro over the weekend.

Joining calls for President Nana Akufo Addo to assent to the bill, the chief said he should consider the interest of the nation irrespective of what it stands to lose from foreign donors.

According to him, the refusal of the president will mean that he supports the activities of the LGBTQ which may not be the case.

He added that he and others who support the bill will not relent to pressure the President to assent to the bill even if they would be killed.

The chief said there are several countries who have banned the activities of the LGBTQ but their economies are growing well despite sanctions from the western world.

The Omanhene of Suma traditional area Odeneho Dr Afram Bempong III also stated that until the country passes a law that forbids the activities of the LGBTQ, traditional laws will be used.

In his view, the president’s refusal to assent to the bill would authenticate the perception that he supports the LGBTQ activities since he said in an interview sometime ago that the activities of the LGBTQ was bound to happen.

The Omanhene used the opportunity to call on former President John Mahama, who graced the event to rehabilitate the deplorable roads in the Jaman North and help complete a university campus in the area should he win this year’s election.

The Sumahene also appealed to the NDC flagbearer to help establish a cashew processing factory to process the cashew in the country.

The chief further requested an Adinkra Centre in the Jaman North District as a remembrance for the Nana Adinkra (Bonohene in Ivory Coast) who created the Adinkra symbols

On his part, Mr Mahama pledged the next NDC government will fix the deplorable roads in the area, adding all the requests of the chiefs have been well noted.

ALSO READ:

• Akufo-Addo not dragging his feet on anti-LGBTQI+ Bill – Deputy Majority leader

• Anti-LGBTQI+ bill: Minority threatens to impeach Akufo-Addo [Video]

Speaking on Newsfile on JoyNews, Mr Banson said that although the Presidency is not the body for which the interlocutory injunction application is directed, receiving the bill will aid in undermining the application and that leaves the President liable for contempt.

He explained that “on the 7th of March he (Richard Dela Sky) filed the writ with the statement of the case and then said that the whole process the Parliament went through breached certain provisions of the constitution. Now, because of that Parliament should be restrained from submitting the bill to the President. On March 8, he went ahead to file for an interlocutory injunction, asking that pending the determination of the writ, Parliament should be retrained from presenting that bill to the President.”

Mr Banson added “Parliament has not denied that they have been served. Now the Attorney General, who is the principal legal adviser to the government, has also been served with the interlocutory application. Now, if you are aware that there is a pending interlocutory injunction application to retain a party from bringing you something and that party brings it to you and you receive it, you have opened yourself up to contempt.”

The lawyer stated that in the Office of the President’s letter, it was made clear that President Akufo-Addo knew the application had been filed and served. Hence, he would like to excuse himself to prevent opening himself up for contempt by receiving the bill.

“If I was the President I would not receive and say take me for contempt. I will not, I will say don’t bring it,” Mr Banson said.

On Monday, March 18, a letter addressed to Parliament and signed by the Executive Secretary to the President, Nana Asante Bediatuo, requested Parliament to refrain from sending the anti-gay bill to President Nana Akufo-Addo for his assent.

The decision, according to Nana Bediatuo Asante, stems from the acknowledgement of two pending applications for an order of interlocutory injunction before the Supreme Court against the bill.

The letter emphasised that it would be improper for Parliament to proceed with transmitting the Bill to President Akufo-Addo for any action until the matters before the court are addressed.

Furthermore, it was disclosed that the Attorney-General has advised the President against taking any action regarding the Bill until the issues raised in the legal suits are resolved by the Supreme Court.

However, Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin said that it is unconstitutional for President Akufo-Addo to refuse the transmission of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2021.

Meanwhile, Mr Banson said that other applications filed at the Supreme Court show it may not grant an interlocutory injunction that could prevent Parliament from performing its constitutional duty.

“Now if you look at the ex parte NLA case, which was in Supreme Court I think 2009, Samuel Kofi Date-Bah (former SC judge) was very categorical, you cannot use injunction to prevent the performance of a statutory responsibility, because the injunction is an equitable relief and would be only granted if there is no other alternative.”

“Article 2 says that any step taken by any person in breach of the constitution can be struck out by the constitution as being an anality. If you seek to prevent that step from being taken, that is your right in a substantive action. But if you bring an interlocutory injunction, the Supreme Court may, without prejudice to the (anti-gay bill) case pending, ask itself whether there are alternative remedies, that is key,” he stated.

Additionally, Mr Banson said that if the alleged breach of statute highlighted in the injunction application is the basis of the substantive application or writ then the Supreme Court may not grant the interlocutory injunction.

“You can look at ex parte Mobil, I think 2005-2006, Georgina Wood, she said if what you are asking us to determine by this interlocutory process will result in us making conclusions that will affect in resolving the substantive matter we will not.

“If you say that there has been a breach and that is why you are seeking a substantive relief, the Supreme Court will not entertain an interlocutory injunction that will delve into the substantive relief.”

ALSO READ:

• Akufo-Addo not dragging his feet on anti-LGBTQI+ Bill – Deputy Majority leader

• Anti-LGBTQI+ bill: Your directive a grave threat to Ghana’s democracy – Bagbin to Akufo-Addo

According to him, the choice of words and the manner in which they were used implied that non-compliance with the directive could result in consequences.

Mr Tameklo’s comments follow a letter addressed to Parliament on Monday, March 18, and signed by the Secretary to the President, Nana Bediatuo Asante.

In the letter, the Office of the President officially ‘warned’ Parliament to refrain from transmitting the Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values bill, commonly referred to as the Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill, to President Akufo-Addo for his assent in light of two applications for an order of interlocutory injunction currently before the Supreme Court.

“In the circumstance, you are kindly requested to cease and deist from transmitting the bill to the President until the matters before the Supreme Court are resolved,” the statement read.

But speaking on JoyNews’ Newsfile on March 23, Mr Tameklo argued that this portion, among others, sounded like a threat.

“Is it not curious that where we have a President who is even a lawyer, one would expect a certain level of sobriety, a certain level of somber reflection, to take decisions that ultimately have an impact on our governance structure?

“Look at the tone of the letter – it is a threat. It is actually a threatening letter. The tone and language do not befit the office,” he asserted.

The NDC lawyer also questioned the authority by which the Executive Secretary to the President, Nana Bediatuo Asante, issues directives on behalf of the President.

Citing an example, he said Mr. Bediatuo Asante was the same person who signed the President’s directive instructing the then Attorney-General, Daniel Domelevo, to proceed on a compulsory leave.

This action, he argued, must be interpreted by the Supreme Court.

“On what authority is Mr Bediatuo Asante purporting to issue that letter? On what statutory or constitutional basis is he putting out that letter? It is becoming one too many, a process that I will describe as ‘misconduct’.

“The issue of Domelevo having to go… it is the same Bediatuo who purported to act on the instructions of the president and asked the man to proceed on leave. For the first time in many years, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to describe the conduct of the President, again conveyed by the same Bediatuo Asante, as unconstitutional,” he added.

On March 2, 2021, then Auditor-General, Daniel Yao Domelevo per the directive of the presidency in July 2020 took an accumulated leave.

The leave which was initially expected to last 123 working days was extended to 167 working days following Mr Domelevo’s letter to President Akufo-Addo, urging him to reconsider his directive.

Among other things, the Auditor-General claimed that the directive was a breach of the labour law and was unconstitutional.

Subsequently, on May 23, 2023, the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision described as unconstitutional the directive from the Presidency that asked former Auditor-General Daniel Domelevo to proceed on leave.

The court also described as unconstitutional the President’s appointment of an Acting Auditor General while there was a substantive Auditor-General.

ALSO READ:

• My leadership will resist any affront to the democracy of Ghana – Bagbin to…

• ‘You can’t hold law-abiding Akufo-Addo to ransom’ – Atta Akyea to Bagbin

The meeting is to discuss the motive behind his directive to Parliament to desist from transmitting the Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill for his assent.

In a letter addressed to Parliament on Monday, March 18, and signed by the Secretary to the President, Nana Bediatuo Asante, the office ‘warned’ Parliament to refrain from transmitting the Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values, commonly referred to as the Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill, to President Akufo-Addo for his assent in light of two applications for an order of interlocutory injunction currently before the Supreme Court.

According to Reverend Father Adjei, although the Conference is displeased with the President’s directive, it intends to schedule a meeting to understand what influenced the decision.

Speaking on JoyFM’s Top Story on March 22, he said, “The conference is not happy. They even intend to approach the President to understand him. We can’t also sit down and just listen to whatever the radio and others are saying.

“You need to go to the person and have a discussion with him because all these things need understanding and consensus and trying to make sure that the country moves forward because the country is neither for NDC nor NPP. It is for all of us.”

He asserts that the President should have allowed the bill to be transmitted and then decided whether or not he would assent to it. He clarified that should the President have decided not to assent, he must provide reasons for the decision, but issuing a letter through his secretary to stop the transmission altogether is wrong.

ALSO READ:

• Akufo-Addo not dragging his feet on anti-LGBTQI+ Bill – Deputy Majority leader

• Anti-LGBTQI+ bill: Minority threatens to impeach Akufo-Addo [Video]

The lawmaker’s comment comes after the Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin on Wednesday halted the approval of the President’s ministerial nominees.

The Speaker clarified that a temporary court order has been filed by South Dayi MP, Rockson-Nelson Etse K. Dafeamekpor.

Referring to a letter from the presidency on the approval of the anti-LGBTQI+ Bill due to pending legal applications at the Supreme Court, the Speaker said he cannot also proceed with the approval of new ministers under similar circumstances.

Reacting to the development, Mr Atta Akyea who is a legal practitioner has however stated there was no constitutional provision violated by his letter to Parliament.

“The speaker believes that the president’s letter is an affront to the dignity of parliament and Mr. Speaker is also of the view that that amounts to contempt, the president cannot bring such a letter to parliament and because of that if the president is trying to respect the injunctive processes in the Supreme Court that is up to the president but that is an affront to parliament, most of us believe that that cannot be the case at all.

“A law-abiding, law-respecting president cannot be held to ransom. Even if he has made an error, you cannot find anywhere in the constitution that the president has violated. There is no provision in the constitution that offends against the letters from the office of the president,” he stated in an interview on Accra-based Citi FM.

ALSO READ:

• My leadership will resist any affront to the democracy of Ghana – Bagbin to Akufo-Addo, Bawumia

• How is the suit linked to vetting of ministers? – NPP man questions Bagbin

While acknowledging the rights given to the executive to assent to or refuse a bill as dictated in Article 106 of the constitution, the dean noted that Parliament ultimately holds the highest authority in legislative matters.

Prof Abotsi’s revelation comes amid a row between Parliament and the Presidency over the Human Sexual Values Bill popularly known as the anti-LGBTQ+ bill which was passed in February.

The Presidency, in a letter on Tuesday, instructed Parliament not to transmit the bill to President Akufo-Addo for his assent.

The decision, according to Nana Bediatuo Asante, stems from the acknowledgment of two pending applications for an order of interlocutory injunction before the Supreme Court.

Highlighting the procedural aspect during JoyNews’ PM Express, Prof. Abotsi explained that in instances where the executive refuses to assent to a bill, a series of exchanges occur between Parliament and the executive.

However, he added that should Parliament persist in its stance and reject proposed changes from the executive on three occasions, it can pass the bill into law without the need for presidential assent.

“The Executive’s participation in lawmaking is rather administrative because it is not that substantive. It can’t defeat the legislative authority of Parliament,” he said on Wednesday.

Nonetheless, the dean stressed the importance of collaboration amongst the arms of government.

“… but it is a collaborative process and the expectation is that they will not over-rule each other but cooperate with each other,” he said.

ALSO READ:

• Anti-LGBTQI+ bill: Your directive a grave threat to Ghana’s democracy – Bagbin to Akufo-Addo

• Refrain from transmitting anti-LGBTQI+ bill to Akufo-Addo – Presidency to Parliament

Speaking on JoyNews’ PM Express, the cleric argued that the presidency’s letter to Parliament, instructing them not to transmit the bill to the presidency contravenes the established constitutional process wherein all laws enacted by parliament must be forwarded to the presidency for consideration.

He reminded the president of his vow to uphold the constitution of the country.

“The way things are going, it is not the best. I am not happy, and neither is the Catholic Bishops Conference. The President must follow the law he swore to uphold when he was sworn into office,” he said on Wednesday.

Nevertheless, in the presidency’s letter addressed to Parliament on Tuesday, the decision stems from the acknowledgment of two pending applications for an order of interlocutory injunction before the Supreme Court.

Expressing dismay over recent events, Reverend Father Adjei called for a dialogue between religious bodies and the president to address the apparent deviation from constitutional norms.

“The constitution is the supreme law of Ghana and any law that is inconsistent with any provision in the constitution, for the sake of its inconsistency is null and void.

“So how can you write a letter telling parliament not to transmit the bill to the presidency? The constitution must be seen as the supreme law of the country. And in that constitution, any law enacted by parliament must be sent to the presidency,” he told host Aisha Ibrahim.

Meanwhile, tensions have been high among the MPs since Parliament received the letter from the presidency.

Parliament also suspended the consideration of the nomination of Ministers and Deputy Ministers of State by President Akufo-Addo in what looks like a retaliation by the Speaker over the president’s position on the controversial bill.

The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin said the legislature could not approve the President’s appointees because of an interlocutory injunction filed at the Supreme Court by MP for South Dayi, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor.

ALSO READ:

• Anti-LGBTQI+ bill: Minority threatens to impeach Akufo-Addo [Video]

• Full text: Speaker Bagbin reacts to refusal of the President to accept the transmission…

The caucus has said Speaker Bagbin’s concerns were legitimate and they are in full support.

“Ladies and gentlemen, I wish to conclude by saying that, the Right Honourable Speaker has made an important call. A call for Parliament to unite against the autocratic tendencies of our President and this government.

“We, in the NDC minority, are ready to protect the sanctity of the constitution of the Republic of Ghana. And we stand with the Speaker of Parliament in this. Let the President of Ghana and his government be aware that where this country is going is strange under his watch and the NDC Minority will not countenance it,” he said.

The Speaker on Wednesday suspended the approval of Akufo-Addo’s new ministerial nominees following their vetting which ended on March 12.

He cited an injunction against the process secured by South Dayi MP, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, hence could not take place.

This he noted was similar to the presidency’s directive for the House to refrain from transmitting the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values popularly known as the Anti-LGBTQI+ Bill for assent due to an application for an interlocutory injunction at the Supreme Court.

Addressing journalists after the proceedings was suspended, Dr Ato-Forson who doubles as the Ajumako Enyan Essiam MP emphasised the President’s directive was a breach of the 1992 constitution.

Dr Forson explained that the constitution provides two options to the President regarding a bill, which are either to assent to the bill or not.

However, the President’s action he said was maintaining a middle ground, stating it was strange and an alien position which is unknown to the constitution.

ALSO READ:

• Anti-LGBTQI+ bill: Your directive a grave threat to Ghana’s democracy – Bagbin to Akufo-Addo

• You can disagree with Akufo-Addo but… – Majority tells Bagbin [Video]

Speaker Bagbin has described the President’s action as a grave threat to Ghana’s democracy and undermines the the spirit of cooperative governance.

“The behaviour exhibited by the Presidency in refusing to accept the transmission of this bill not only deviates from established democratic practices but also undermines the spirit of cooperative governance and mutual respect for the arms of government. The President’s refusal to accept the transmission of the bill is, by all accounts, not supported by the constitutional and statutory provisions that guide our legislative process.

“This ongoing scenario poses a grave threat to our legislative authority and, by extension, the democratic principles we strive to uphold. The implications of such executive actions extend far beyond the immediate legislative items at hand. They erode the foundational checks and balances that our forebearers painstakingly established to ensure a vibrant and functioning democracy,” he stated.

A letter dated March 18, 2024 and issued by the Office of the President directed Parliament to refrain from sending the bill which was passed on February 28 for presidential assent.

The letter signed by the Executive Secretary, Nana Bediatuo Asante, noted there are two pending applications for an order of interlocutory injunction before the Supreme Court against the bill.

However, the livid Speaker who was forced to adjourn proceedings and suspend the approval of new ministerial nominees said the action of Akufo-Addo if left unchecked risk setting dangerous precedents.

Citing instances where the President has refused to sign other bills, he asserted the action threaten the integrity of institutions.

“This is a principle that forms the cornerstone of our political system. Such actions, if left unchecked, risk setting dangerous precedents that threaten the integrity and functionality of our democratic institutions.

“To situate this statement in the appropriate context, it is crucial to acknowledge a disturbing pattern emerging from the Executive branch, which points to a concerning disregard for the foundational principles enshrined in the Constitution, 1992,” he added.

Speaker Bagbin urged the Presidency to reconsider its position to facilitate a transparent legislative process.

“I reiterate that the refusal to even accept the bill for consideration falls outside the legal bounds established by our constitutional framework. It is incumbent upon the President to accept the bill and take the necessary action within the prescribed constitutional limits, whether that action is assent, refusal, or referral to the Council of State for advice,” he admonished.

ALSO READ:

• Bagbin suspends approval of Akufo-Addo’s new ministers

• You can disagree with Akufo-Addo but… – Majority tells Bagbin [Video]

The Majority in Parliament has taken on Speaker Alban Bagbin over his response to President Nana Akufo-Addo over a letter to the House to cease transmitting the anti-LGBTQI+ bill for his assent.

In a letter to Parliament, the Secretary to the President, Nana Bediatuo Asante explained the directive was informed by two pending applications for an order of interlocutory injunction before the Supreme Court.

The applications sought to prevent Parliament from sending the Bill to the President and to restrain the President from signifying his assent to the Bill, pending the final determination of the matter.

In this regard, Speaker Bagbin on Wednesday suspended the approval of Akufo-Addo’s new ministerial nominees, stating he has also received an injunction against the exercise.

Mr Bagbin stated the President’s act was a departure from established democratic practices and also undermines the spirit of cooperative governance.

He further criticised the presidency for attempting to disregard the foundational principles enshrined in the 1992 Constitution.

Addressing a press conference following the suspension, Majority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin stated Speaker Bagbin is at liberty to disagree with the President and express opinions on his actions.

“Mr Speaker went beyond expressing disagreement and rather pronounced judgment on what in his view was wrong. Mr Speaker did not only stop there, he also used very unsavory words to describe Mr. President. We believe that in a democracy, we have our right to disagree on views expressed but we do not have the right to say things to denigrate another. This we think is very unacceptable,” he said.

However, the comments of Speaker Bagbin according to the Effutu MP must not aim at denigrating Akufo-Addo.

“Mr Speaker said the President has undermined democracy and that he should have resorted to the Constitution in making certain communications to the House. We in the Majority beg to disagree with the position taken by Mr Speaker. If you carefully read the letter that was sent to Parliament, Mr President limited himself to the process before the court and the fact that Parliament itself has filed an affidavit in opposition and is in court.

“In fact,  Parliament is a party to the suit, so for us, we do not see how this would have to affect the proceedings of Parliament. In any event, Mr Speaker has always deferred to the leadership of the House to guide him in the conduct of business,” he stated.

The leader added the Speaker’s action was disappointing since he adjourned the House without taking comments from the parliamentary leadership.

“It is very disappointing that after Mr Speaker had made known his own views about the letter sent from the presidency to the clerk he adjourned the house without giving room for the leadership of the house to even comment.

“This we find very strange, this is a democracy and we believe, as Mr speaker himself said, that this impasse calls for reflection. I will play that out to Mr Speaker that we all need to reflect on the way forward as a nation,” he lamented.

Listen to the Majority Leader in the video above:

ALSO READ:

• Refrain from transmitting anti-LGBTQI+ bill to Akufo-Addo – Presidency to Parliament

• LGBTQ: It doesn’t sit well – Koku Anyidoho on Presidency’s letter to Parliament

Honorable Members, I address you today amid circumstances that profoundly challenge the core principles of our constitutional democracy.

At the outset, I must express my profound regret concerning the conduct displayed by the Presidency following Parliament’s successful unanimous passage of the Human Sexual Values Bill, 2021.

The behaviour exhibited by the Presidency in refusing to accept the transmission of this bill not only deviates from established democratic practices but also undermines the spirit of cooperative governance and mutual respect for the arms of government.

This is a principle that forms the cornerstone of our political system. Such actions, if left unchecked, risk setting dangerous precedents that threaten the integrity and functionality of our democratic institutions.

To situate this statement in the appropriate context, it is crucial to acknowledge a disturbing pattern emerging from the Executive branch, which points to a concerning disregard for the foundational principles enshrined in the Constitution, 1992.

This pattern has once again been made evident in the President’s recent refusal to accept the transmission of the Human Sexual Values Bill. The recent move is not isolated. It forms part of a series of actions that undermine the legislative process. As you may recall, I addressed this House on 22nd December 2023 in a formal statement. The purpose of that statement was to draw your attention to the President’s refusal to assent to three critical bills that had been duly passed via as a Private Members’ Bill.

During that address, I underscored the troubling nature of the President’s justifications for his actions, or rather, the lack thereof, particularly highlighting that his failure to assent on grounds of alleged unconstitutionality, paradoxically stood in violation of the very constitution he invoked.

Despite the gravity of this matter, it is disheartening to note that there has been no progress in rectifying the situation concerning those significant pieces of legislation. They remain in a state of limbo, unacted upon following the President’s communication, which lacked substantial legal justification.

This ongoing scenario poses a grave threat to our legislative authority and, by extension, the democratic principles we strive to uphold. The implications of such executive actions extend far beyond the immediate legislative items at hand. They erode the foundational checks and balances that our forebearers painstakingly established to ensure a vibrant and functioning democracy.

When important legislative work, the product of rigorous debate and consensus-building within this House, is disregarded without just cause, it not only disrespects the legislative branch but also disenfranchises the citizens we are sworn to serve. This blatant disregard for legislative processes and constitutional mandates risks setting a perilous precedent that could weaken the very fabric of our governance structure.

Honorable Members, on 19 March 2024, my attention was drawn to a letter issued by the Executive Secretary to the President, Nana Asante Bediatuo, addressed to the Clerk to Parliament which letter is clearly in my opinion contemptuous of Parliament.

The letter outlined that the Clerk ought to “cease and desist” from attempting to transmit the Human Sexual Values Bill, 2021 to the President for necessary action accordance with the Constitution. In the said letter, the Executive Secretary indicated that the Office of the President was aware of two pending applications for an order of interlocutory injunction seeking to restrain the Clerk and Parliament from transmitting the Bill to the President.

It further indicated that the Hon. Attorney General had on 18 March 2024 informed the President that he had received the two applications and had advised the President not to take any step in relation to the Bill until matters raised by the suit are determined by the Supreme Court. As a result, the Presidency conveyed to the Clerk that it was unable to accept transmission of the Bill.

My attention has also been drawn to the 18 March 2024, letter from the Hon. Attorney General being referred to by the Executive Secretary to the President, Nana Asante Bediatuo above. In the said letter, I note that the Attorney-General used the phrase “…I will respectfully advice that a decision to assent to the Bill be made after the determination of the application for interlocutory injunction…”.and not an advice to the President not to receive the Bill from Parliament.

It is therefore interesting that in view of this clear and unambiguous advice from the Attorney-General to the President, the Presidency has taken this decision.

In the face of these developments, it is important for us to reflect upon the manner in which these events have unfolded. On the 28th of February, 2024, this august House took a decisive step in passing the Bill, a move that was the culmination of rigorous debate, thoughtful deliberation, and the collective will of the representatives of our people.

Following this, the Bill underwent the customary process of winnowing which is an important procedure designed to ensure that all amendments and changes proposed during the legislative process were accurately incorporated.

After the successful completion of the winnowing process, the Clerk to Parliament, fulfilling his duties as the procedural intermediary between the legislative and executive branches, endeavoured to send the Bill to the Presidency in accordance with section 5 of the Interpretation Act, 2009 (Act 792).

This action, steeped in established parliamentary practice and procedure, signifies the final step in the legislative process, enabling the President to review and, if in agreement, assent to the Bill, thereby enacting it into law in accordance with Article 106(7) of the Constitution.

The refusal to accept the Bill for transmission did not occur in isolation but persisted across multiple attempts, with the third attempt to transmit the Bill forming the basis of the letter I have previously alluded to.

Notably, the Presidency’s refusal to accept the transmission of the Bill has not been formally communicated to this House through the established channels of official correspondence from the President to this House. The absence of an official communication to the House regarding the Presidency’s refusal is troubling, yet it does not diminish the gravity of the situation nor our responsibility to address it.

The contents of the letter, albeit not formally presented to us, have come to our attention, compelling us to confront the issues it raises. It is a matter of great concern that the executive branch has chosen to disregard the established constitutional structures that facilitate constructive dialogue and collaboration between the branches of government.

In light of these circumstances, it is incumbent on this House to stand united in its response to this affront to the legislative authority vested in it by the Constitution and the people we serve. We must articulate a collective voice that unequivocally condemns the disregard for our constitutional structures and reaffirms our commitment to upholding the rule of law. This situation calls for a principled stance, emphasizing the importance of adherence to the procedures and norms that govern our democratic institutions.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN AFTER A BILL HAS BEEN PASSED

Article 106(7) of the Constitution provides:
Where a bill passed by Parliament is presented to the President for assent he shall signify, within seven days after the presentation to the Speaker that he assents to the bill or that he refuses to assent to the bill, unless the bill has been referred by the President to the Council of State under Article 90 of this Constitution.

Section 5 of the Interpretation Act, 2009 (Act 792) provides:

As soon as a Bill is passed by Parliament, the text of the Bill as passed shall be sent by the Clerk of Parliament to the Government Printer, who shall print four copies of the Bill on vellum paper or on paper of enduring quality and send the copies to the Clerk.

On receiving the copies, the Clerk shall carefully compare them with the text of the Bill as passed and if the Clerk finds the copies to be correct, shall sign on each copy a statement in the form set out in the First Schedule, and shall send the copies so authenticated to the President for the assent.

Where the Bill was passed in accordance with the relevant provisions of article 108 of the Constitution, the Clerk shall, before causing the copies to be presented to the President, submit them to the Speaker who, if satisfied that the Bill was passed in accordance with the Constitution shall sign on each copy a certificate in the Form set out in the First Schedule.

After the assent, the Clerk shall enter on the copies the appropriate number of the Act.

The combined effect of these provisions read together is that after a bill is passed by Parliament, it undergoes a meticulous process designed to ensure its conformity with the nation’s legal and constitutional standards before it can become law. Initially, the passed bill is sent to the Government Printer, who is responsible for printing four copies on high-quality, durable paper.

Following this, the Clerk to Parliament conducts a thorough verification of these printed copies against the original bill to ensure their accuracy. Upon successful verification, the Clerk authenticates each copy by signing a statement that certifies their correctness. In Article 108 matters, an additional step is introduced. The authenticated copies are presented to the Speaker of Parliament, who must certify that the bill was indeed passed in accordance with Article 108 by signing a certificate on each copy.

The final and perhaps most critical phase of the process involves the presentation of the bill to the President for assent. Pursuant to Article 106(7) of the Constitution, the President has a seven-day period to either assent to the bill, signifying its enactment into law, or refuse to assent, which may involve referring the bill to the Council of State for further advice. Upon the President’s assent, the Clerk of Parliament assigns an official Act number to the bill, formally marking its transition into law.

INJUNCTION APPLICATIONS AND ITS EFFECT ON THE LAW-MAKING PROCESS

Honorable Members, this House has been duly served with two injunction applications in respect of the Bill. The applications titled Richard Sky v The Parliament of Ghana & the Attorney-General, and Dr. Amanda Odoi v The Speaker of Parliament & the Attorney General.

Honorable Members would recall that on 19 July 2023, the Supreme Court considered and dismissed an application for interlocutory injunction that sought to injunct the proceedings of Parliament in respect of the Bill. The Court in that case, Dr. Amanda Odoi v the Speaker of Parliament & the Attorney General (J1/13/2023) reasoned that the application failed to meet the threshold for the grant of interlocutory injunctions.

The Executive Secretary to the President, noted in his letter that “it is settled law that during the pendency of an interlocutory injunction application, the status quo ante ought to be preserved, and no action be taken that would result in prejudicing the injunctive relief sought and undermining the authority of the court”.

Honorable Members, an injunction is a judicial order that restrains a person from beginning or continuing an action that threatens or breaches the legal right of another, or that compels a person to carry out a certain act, such as correcting a wrongful state of affairs. In the context of our law, interlocutory injunctions serve as an important tool for maintaining the status quo pending the resolution of a legal dispute, ensuring that the parties involved do not engage in actions that could cause irreparable harm or fundamentally alter the situation before the court has an opportunity to decide the case.

The only grounds for the grant of an injunction in law is “… in all cases in which it appears to the Court to be just and convenient to do so…”.

The Executive Secretary to the President’s reference to the preservation of the status quo ante during the pendency of an interlocutory injunction application is a highlight of the fundamental principle intended to prevent any action that might prejudice the injunctive relief sought or undermine the authority of the court. However, the interpretation of this principle has given rise to two distinct schools of thought regarding the effect of an application for an injunction.

The two schools of thought concerning the effect of an application for an injunction during its pendency, particularly in the absence of a clear authoritative position from the Supreme Court, offer contrasting views on how parties should conduct themselves. Each perspective carries significant implications for the administration of justice, the rights of the parties involved, and the overall legal process.

One school argues that the mere application for an injunction should act as a de facto ‘injunction,’ compelling parties to refrain from taking any further actions that could affect the matter at hand. This view is predicated on the notion that, to ensure the administration of justice is not interfered with, parties should err on the side of caution and halt any actions that could potentially influence the outcome of the dispute or render the court’s eventual decision ineffectual.

Conversely, the other school of thought maintains that an application for an injunction does not, in itself, constitute a court order. Accordingly, parties are not legally obligated to cease their activities merely because an injunction application has been filed. Proponents of this perspective argue that until the court issues a formal injunction, the parties retain their rights to proceed as they see fit, provided they do not engage in unlawful conduct or actions explicitly prohibited by law.

In the context of Ghana’s constitutional and legislative framework, the debate over the effect of an application for an injunction, particularly when such an application targets legislative processes, warrants careful consideration. Given the clear constitutional and statutory provisions outlining the President’s obligations and powers after a bill has been passed by Parliament, adopting the stance that an application for an injunction acts as a de facto injunction presents several challenges and potential pitfalls.

The Constitution, specifically in Article 106(7) and 106(8), along with relevant statutory provisions, delineates a precise procedure for the passage, transmission, and assent or refusal of bills. These procedures are designed to ensure a smooth operation of the legislative process, providing checks and balances between the branches of government while safeguarding against undue delay or obstruction in the enactment of laws.

Adopting the de facto injunction perspective, wherein the mere filing of an injunction application is seen to necessitate a halt in the legislative process, runs the risk of unduly fettering the work of Parliament. Such a stance could enable parties to strategically file injunction applications, not necessarily on the strength of their legal position, but as a tactic to delay or complicate proceedings of this House. This approach risks transforming the legal system into a tool for political maneuvering rather than a mechanism for justice, effectively crippling Parliament’s ability to function and bringing legislative processes to a standstill.

In considering the implications of applying for an injunction against the legislative process, particularly in relation to the transmission of a bill to the President for assent, the concept of irreparable harm must be examined. This concept, an important consideration for granting injunctions, requires that it is demonstrated to a sufficient degree that the harm which would occur in the absence of an injunction is both significant and incapable of being adequately remedied through damages. In the specific context of transmitting a bill for presidential assent, it’s imperative to understand that this step in the legislative process does not inherently lead to irreparable harm.

The act of transmission merely represents the procedural progression of a bill within the structured framework established by the Constitution. It does not, in and of itself, guarantee the bill’s enactment into law, as the President is accorded the authority, as clearly outlined in the Constitution, to either assent to the bill or refuse it under Articles 106(7) and 106(8).

Additionally, in the event that a bill is assented to by the President and becomes law, the Constitution provides a mechanism for judicial review. Articles 2(1) and 130 empower the Supreme Court to scrutinize the constitutionality of any Act of Parliament. Should the Court find that the law is unconstitutional, it possesses the authority to invalidate the Act. Given these considerations, it is evident that the transmission of a bill to the President for assent, does not result in irreparable harm that would justify the granting of an injunction much less the halting of parliamentary processes on account of the application for an injunction.

Generally, the Supreme court has upheld the position of the law that the official acts by Organs of the State and Government Departments are presumed to be regularly performed unless there is strong evidence in rebuttal.

Arising out of this, it is imperative to note that the Courts have been very reluctant in injuncting and placing impediments on arms of government and constitutional bodies from performing their constitutionally mandated duties.

The Supreme Court has always resisted attempts to unfairly and unnecessarily place a clog on the work of this House through the use of injunction applications. In Welford Quarcoo v the Attorney General, the Supreme Court per Dr. Date-Bah JSC noted that:
Where the relief sought relates, as here, to a public law matter, particular care must be taken not to halt action presumptively for the public good, unless there are very cogent reasons to do so, and provided also that any subsequent nullification of the impugned act or omission cannot restore the status quo.

Given the reliefs that the plaintiff is seeking in the substantive suit in this case, it is clear that if he succeeds in securing the declarations he has claimed, the impugned provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462) will be declared void and any actions made in pursuance of them nullified.
Accordingly, no irreparable damage will have been caused the plaintiff during the period between the issue of the writ and the date of judgment.

In Dr. Amanda Odoi v the Speaker of Parliament & the Attorney General (J1/13/2023) the court refused to grant the injunction application because no prima facie case had been made to restrain the work of Parliament and further the applicant was unable to prove irreparable damage should the work of Parliament continue in respect of the Bill.

The Court’s cautious approach in dealing with injunction applications against parliamentary processes further underscores the importance of not hastily impeding the legislative functions of Parliament. The precedents as I have just set out, shows that courts have been slow to grant injunctions that would halt the work of Parliament, recognizing the profound implications such actions could have on the legislative autonomy and the balance of powers within the government.

This judicial reticence is rooted in a recognition of the fundamental principles underpinning a democratic society, where each branch of government, operates within its own sphere of influence, with specific duties and powers that are designed to complement each other, ensuring a robust system of checks and balances.

The courts, in exercising their discretion in matters of injunctions against Parliament, demonstrate a careful consideration of these principles, opting to intervene only when absolutely necessary and when the legal thresholds for such intervention are unequivocally met. The implications of allowing injunction applications to unduly influence or halt the legislative process are profound. It undermines the constitutionally outlined procedures and also poses a significant threat to the functioning of democracy.

Such a perspective could stultify not only the work of Parliament but also that of other arms of government or statutory agencies, based merely on the potential for an injunction. This approach, therefore, is legally unfounded given the clear constitutional mandates and potentially dangerous, as it could serve to undermine the principles of separation of powers and the efficient functioning of government.

CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS

Honourable Members, several critical points emerge that underscore the importance of adhering to constitutional and legal frameworks within our democratic governance. Firstly, the President’s refusal to accept the transmission of the bill is, by all accounts, not supported by the constitutional and statutory provisions that guide our legislative process. The Constitution clearly delineates the steps to be followed once a bill has been passed by Parliament, mandating the transmission of the bill to the President for assent or rejection.

Therefore, the refusal to even accept the bill for consideration falls outside the legal bounds established by our constitutional framework. It is incumbent upon the President to accept the bill and take the necessary action within the prescribed constitutional limits, whether that action is assent, refusal, or referral to the Council of State for advice.

It is instructive to note that the Executive, has in the past proceeded with its actions, although, there has been pending before the court, injunction application against the State.

Secondly, there must be a steadfast rejection of any attempts to unduly fetter or hinder the work of Parliament. The Parliament of Ghana operates as a crucial part of our democracy, embodying the will and voice of the people. Any efforts to obstruct its work disrespects this fundamental institution and threatens the principles of governance by consent and representation.

Thirdly, it is imperative to remain vigilant against setting dangerous precedents that could potentially undermine the foundation of our democracy. The rejection of a bill’s transmission without constitutional basis introduces a precarious deviation from established democratic practices and norms. Such actions, if left unchallenged, may embolden future attempts to circumvent the legislative process, thereby weakening the integrity and efficacy of our democratic institutions.

Lastly, in alignment with our constitutional mandates and the principles of good governance, it is essential for the President to adhere to the lawful course of action by accepting the transmission of the bill. Upon receipt, the President has the constitutionally provided options to assent to the bill, refuse it, or seek further consultation, as deemed necessary.

As we move forward, it is the collective responsibility of all branches of government, and indeed all citizens, to uphold the constitution and ensure that our democratic practices are not only preserved but strengthened.

The current impasse presents an opportunity for reflection and reaffirmation of our commitment to the principles of democracy, rule of law, and the unequivocal respect for the legislative process that forms the bedrock of our nation’s governance.

I reiterate that the refusal to even accept the bill for consideration falls outside the legal bounds established by our constitutional framework. It is incumbent upon the President to accept the bill and take the necessary action within the prescribed constitutional limits, whether that action is assent, refusal, or referral to the Council of State for advice.

Article 106(7) says
“Where a bill passed by Parliament is presented to the President for assent, he shall signify within seven days after the presentation, to the Speaker that he assets to the bill or that he refuses to assent to bill, unless the bill has been referred by the President to the Council of State under article 90 of this Constitution.”

The Parliament of Ghana will comply with the existing legal framework and reject the attempts by the Executive Secretary of the President, through his contemptuous letter, to instruct the Clerk to Parliament, an Officer of Parliament whose position is recognizably under the Constitution. We shall not cease and desist!

Be that as it may, Hon Members, I also bring to your attention, the receipt of a process from the Courts titled Rockson-Nelson Etse K. Dafeamekpor vrs the Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney-General ( Suit no. J1/12/2024) which process was served on the 19th of March 2024 and an injunction motion on notice seeking to restrain the Speaker from proceeding with the vetting and approval of the names of the persons submitted by His Excellency the President until the provisions of the constitution are satisfied.

Hon. Members in the light of this process, the House is unable to continue to consider the nominations of His Excellency the President in the “spirit of upholding the rule of law “ until after the determination of the application for interlocutory injunction by the Supreme Court.

Hon. Members, I thank you for your attention.

The decision on Wednesday was informed by an interlocutory injunction filed at the Supreme Court by South Dayi MP, Rockson-Nelson Etse Dafeamekpor.

Speaker Bagbin also cited a letter from the presidency on the anti-LGBTQI+ bill which instructed Parliament not to transmit it for the President’s assent.

The presidency cited an ongoing interlocutory application at the Supreme Court as grounds for their decision.

“The ongoing scenario poses a grave threat to our legislative authority and, by extension, the democratic principles we strive to uphold. The implications of such executive actions extend far beyond the immediate legislative items at hand. They erode the foundational checks and balances that our forebearers painstakingly established to ensure a vibrant and functioning democracy.”

“The Parliament of Ghana will comply with the existing legal framework and reject the attempts by the Executive Secretary of the President, through his contemptuous letter, to instruct the Clerk to Parliament, an Officer of Parliament whose position is recognizably under the Constitution. We shall not cease and desist!,” he stated.

In this regard, the Speaker stated Parliament can also not proceed with the approval of new ministers under similar circumstances.

“Be that as it may, Hon Members, I also bring to your attention, the receipt of a process from the Courts titled Rockson-Nelson Etse K. Dafeamekpor vrs. The Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney -General ( Suit no. J1/12/2024) which process was served on the 19th of March 2024 and an injunction motion on notice seeking to restrain the Speaker from proceeding with the vetting and approval of the names of the persons submitted by His Excellency the President until the provisions of the constitution are satisfied.

“Hon. Members in the light of this process, the House is unable to continue to consider the nominations of His Excellency the President in the “spirit of upholding the rule of law “ until after the determination of the application for interlocutory injunction by the Supreme Court,” he explained.

ALSO READ:

• Anti-LGBTQI+ bill: Dafeamekpor disagrees with Akufo-Addo

• Akufo-Addo appoints caretaker ministers

The Office of the President officially requested Parliament to refrain from transmitting the Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill to President Akufo-Addo for his assent.

In a letter addressed to Parliament on Monday, March 18, and signed by the Secretary to the President, Nana Asante Bediatuo, the request was made in light of two pending applications for an order of interlocutory injunction currently before the Supreme Court.

The letter emphasised that it would be improper for Parliament to proceed with transmitting the Bill to President Akufo-Addo for any action until the matters before the court are addressed.

However, the South Dayi MP stated that no pending court case can prevent the president from performing his constitutional duty.

Speaking on JoyFM’s Top Story on March 19, he argued that in many instances where there was a court case to challenge the authenticity of election results, the President was not hindered from performing his duty.

Mr Dafeamekpor clarified that in this same instance, an interim injunction cannot prevent the President from carrying out his duty, including assenting a bill.

 “If you read the Supreme Court decision in the dismissal of the Electoral Commissioner Charlotte Osei, no court can injunct a president from performing his functions under the constitution.

“That is why there is a presumption of regularity of performance of functions of the president until a court otherwise removes him.

“So for instance, when a president is elected into office, sworn in, and takes the oath of office, and another who contested is aggrieved and goes to the Supreme Court, what the President does until the court pronounces on the validity or otherwise of the election of that President is not declared venality. So you cannot say that because the election of the President is challenged, you can bring an action to injunct the President not to perform the functions imposed upon the office of the President,” he said.

Additionally, the legislator said the President could still carry out his mandates until the verdict of the case. In this instance, he said the verdict of the case does not affect past events.

 “It can only be, going forward, the decision of the court can only be going forward but it cannot affect any decision that he takes whilst occupying that office. That is why if anybody and in any case let’s this make clear you can only challenge an act of Parliament, a bill is not an act of Parliament properly so called.

“So it only when a bill is declared unconstitutional that its effect can be challenged,” he added.

On the same show, Associate Professor at the University of Ghana Law School, Professor Kwadwo Appiagyei-Atua, said there was no need for this issue to constitute a constitutional crisis.

He explained that the President might have decided to wait to hear the court verdict on the issue because, in the case of the E-levy where the minority chastised the president for assenting to the bill despite an injunction application, this time President Akufo-Addo might want to do right by the people.

 “If the President decides not to sign the bill or assent to the bill but to wait for the court to pronounce on it, I think the President is doing the right thing. So, all we have to do is to wait for the President for him to make the determination of the injunction. I think that is what the President is trying to say,” he said.

Touching on the letter communicating the President’s stance on the matter, he said that for the Executive Secretary to have his signature on the letter instead of the President might not give the needed credence to the content of the letter.

“As for the letter signed by the Executive Secretary, I don’t think it carries any weight because it is not the President himself,” he added.  

ALSO READ:

• Refrain from transmitting anti-LGBTQI+ bill to Akufo-Addo – Presidency to Parliament

• Anti-LGBTQI+ Bill: You don’t need Supreme Court verdict to assent – Akufo-Addo told [Video]

The caution according to the Presidency is due to two pending applications for an order of interlocutory injunction before the Supreme Court.

This was contained in a statement signed by the Secretary to the President, Nana Asante Bediatuo dated March 18.

The statement explained the applications seek to prevent Parliament from sending the Bill to the President and to restrain him from assenting it into law, pending the final determination of the matter.

The statement disclosed that the Attorney-General, Godfred Yeboah Dame had informed the President that he had been duly served with both applications.

In light of this, the Attorney-General advised the President not to take any action concerning the Bill until the issues raised by the suits are resolved by the Supreme Court.

“It is the understanding of this Office that both applications have also been duly served on Parliament. Therefore, it would be improper for you to transmit the Bill to the President and equally improper for this Office to receive the Bill until the Supreme Court determines the matters raised in the suits.

“In the circumstances, you are kindly requested to cease and desist from transmitting the Bill to the President until the matters before the Supreme Court are resolved,” it added.

ALSO READ:

• Anti-LGBTQI+ bill: Akufo-Addo is smart enough not to assent – Kofi Jumah

• Anti-LGBTQI+ Bill: Akufo-Addo will not commit political suicide – Martin Amidu

Read the full statement below:

Admitting he does not subscribe to gayism, the former Asokwa Member of Parliament (MP) has however described the bill as bad.

This according to him is because it is based on hallucinations, crazy stuff, and emotions.

“That law is bad. Maybe they had the intention of managing gayism, but that was not what they did. They used some crazy stuff; there is some crazy stuff that they’ve been hallucinating about and they made it into law.

“Trust me, I hope Akufo-Addo doesn’t sign; he’s smart enough not to sign, but if it were to be signed, within 6 months, the same people will be coming back for the law to be changed,” he stated in an interview with Adubia TV.

The bill, which aims at strengthening proper human sexual rights and family values of Ghanaians, has set six months to five years imprisonment for persons found in breach of the bill.

It criminalises the promotion, advocacy, and every act of homosexuality.

The anti-gay bill is however not yet to be assented to by President Nana Akufo-Addo for it to become law.

As the nation awaits his decision, there is incessant pressure for the President not to assent to the bill.

Meanwhile, Mr Jumah has proposed further deliberations before the President makes a decision,

“Even though I doesn’t like gays, I won’t go around with a gun shooting or slashing them with cutlasses,” he stated.

ALSO READ:

• Anti-LGBTQI+ Bill: We’ll advise ourselves on December 7 if… – GPCC

• Akufo-Addo approved E-levy amidst a lawsuit, why not anti-LGBTQI+ Bill? – Sam George quizzes

According to him, women are one of God’s best creation whom he loves so much.

The Chief Executive of GIHOC Distilleries disclosed this in an interview on the sidelines of the passage of the anti-LGBTQI+ bill.

“First of all, I don’t want any man to touch me. One of the best creations God ever made was to make the woman. I love the woman. When I see a woman if there were no women in this world, I would be walking naked from here to Circle; they manage my life,” he told Adubia TV.

The bill passed on Wednesday, February 28, 2024, awaits presidential assent to be law.

However, on March 5, a journalist cum lawyer, Richard Dela Sky filed a lawsuit against Parliament at the Supreme Court regarding its passage.

The reliefs sought by the journalist include an order restraining President Akufo-Addo from assenting to the bill and also preventing the “Speaker of Parliament and the Clerk to Parliament from presenting ‘The Human and Sexual Values Bill, 2024’ to the President of the Republic for his assent.”

In view of this, President Akufo-Addo has said until the Apex Court gives its verdict, no action would be taken by his government on the private Member’s bill.

He has also reassured the international community of Ghana’s commitment to upholding human rights despite the passage of the bill.

Addressing concerns during a diplomatic engagement, the President emphasised that Ghana remains steadfast in its long-standing reputation for respecting human rights and adherence to the rule of law.

ALSO READ:

• Anti-LGBTQI+ Bill: Akufo-Addo will not commit political suicide – Martin Amidu

• Anti-LGBTQI+ Bill: AriseGhana threatens demo against Akufo-Addo

In a lengthy statement, Mr Amidu said passing the bill into law will be a political suicide Akufo-Addo will not commit.

“As I told my interlocutors then, “self-preservation is the first law of nature” and Nana Akufo-
Addo will be committing suicide to assent the LGBTQ+ Bill passed by Parliament into law.

“Nana Akufo-Addo’s long game, the aura he has built around himself as a democrat in the
western tradition, and all the ingratiation efforts he has invested in, will come to nought
should he assent to the Bill upon passage. The fact that other citizens closely watching the
Ghanaian political scene knew the difficulty the Bill was going to face when it got to the desk
of the President was articulated by no less a person than Minority Leader Ato Forson,” portions of the statement read.

In his view, anybody who presumed Akufo-Addo will assent to the bill has not studied his political biography before and upon his assumption of office as President.

According to him, the president has worked effortlessly to look good in the eyes of Western leaders, and will not soil that reputation by stooping low to sign the bill.

“I had no doubt in my mind that no admonishment from any quarters, religious,
cultural, social, or otherwise would persuade Nana Akufo-Addo to sign it when presented to
him. Those who had conversations with me long before Parliament began to consider and to
pass the Bill will confirm my position on this matter,” it added.

President Akufo-Addo’s in the past days has come under fierce criticisms over his declaration on the controversial bill which was passed on Wednesday, February 28, 2024.

On Tuesday, March 5, a journalist cum lawyer, Richard Dela Sky filed a lawsuit against Parliament at the Supreme Court regarding the passage of the anti-LGBTQ+ bill.

The reliefs sought by the journalist include an order restraining President Akufo-Addo from assenting to the bill and also preventing the “Speaker of Parliament and the Clerk to Parliament from presenting ‘The Human and Sexual Values Bill, 2024’ to the President of the Republic for his assent.”

This was barely 24 hours after Akufo-Addo revealed that the Bill is facing a legal challenge at the Supreme Court and that until a decision is arrived at, no action would be taken by his government on the private Member’s bill.

Addressing concerns during a diplomatic engagement on March 4 at Peduase, the President emphasised that Ghana remains steadfast in its long-standing reputation for respecting human rights and adherence to the rule of law.

He reassured the international community of Ghana’s commitment to upholding human rights despite the passage of the bill.

ALSO READ:

• Anti-LGBTQI+ Bill: You don’t need Supreme Court verdict to assent – Akufo-Addo told [Video]

• Anti-LGBTQI+ Bill: AriseGhana threatens demo against Akufo-Addo

Click here to read the full take:

Private legal practitioner, Kweku Paintsil is not convinced that President Akufo-Addo is genuinely not assenting to the anti-LGBTQI+ Bill because of a pending legal challenge at the Supreme Court.

According to him, President Akufo-Addo does not need to wait for the Apex Court’s verdict if he really wants to sign the controversial bill into law.

Speaking on Adom FM’s morning show, Dwaso Nsem, Mr Paintsil explained that, there are precedents that the President went ahead to make certain decisions despite a suit pending at the time.

He has therefore questioned the basis for President Akufo-Addo’s decision to wait for the court ruling.

However, he stated the President cannot be faulted for his stance on the Bill.

On Tuesday, March 5, a journalist cum lawyer, Richard Dela Sky filed a lawsuit against Parliament at the Supreme Court regarding the passage of the anti-LGBTQ+ bill.

The reliefs sought by the journalist include an order restraining President Akufo-Addo from assenting to the bill and also preventing the “Speaker of Parliament and the Clerk to Parliament from presenting ‘The Human and Sexual Values Bill, 2024’ to the President of the Republic for his assent.”

This was barely 24 hours after Akufo-Addo revealed that the Bill is facing a legal challenge at the Supreme Court and that until a decision is arrived at, no action would be taken by his government on the private Member’s bill.

Addressing concerns during a diplomatic engagement on March 4 at Peduase, the President emphasised that Ghana remains steadfast in its long-standing reputation for respecting human rights and adherence to the rule of law.

He reassured the international community of Ghana’s commitment to upholding human rights despite the passage of the bill.

Meanwhile, President Akufo-Addo’s declaration has been met with fierce criticisms with a lot of questions begging for answers.

Listen to lawyer Paintsil in the video attached above:

ALSO READ:

• Anti-LGBTQI+ Bill: AriseGhana threatens demo against Akufo-Addo

• Akufo-Addo approved E-levy amidst a lawsuit, why not anti-LGBTQI+ Bill? – Sam George quizzes

According to the group, it will mobilise the public for advocacy, activism, and protest throughout March 2024.

In a statement signed by the convener, Rex Omar, AriseGhana questioned President Akufo-Addo’s reluctance to assent to which was passed in Parliament on February 28, 2024.

If the anti-gay Bill is signed into law, individuals found guilty would face a jail term of 6 months to 3 years, while promoters and sponsors of the act could face a 3 to 5-year jail term.

The statement highlighted the importance of upholding core national values and the need to address the LGBTQI+ issue.

They therefore criticised the government for its handling of financial matters, suggesting that concerns over potential aid loss due to the Bill’s passage raise questions about the management of significant revenues and loans obtained during the government’s tenure.

The group has vowed to mount pressure on the government to assent to the Bill for the benefit of the nation and to protect cherished family values.

ALSO READ:

• Anti-LGBTQI+ Bill: Africa is watching you – Kofi Amoah to Akufo-Addo

• Akufo-Addo approved E-levy amidst a lawsuit, why not anti-LGBTQI+ Bill? – Sam George quizzes

Below is the full statement:

I want to assure you that no such back-sliding will be contemplated or occasioned…I think it will serve little purpose to go, at this stage, into the details of the origin of this proposed law, which is yet to reach my desk.

But, suffice it to say, that I have learnt that, today, a challenge has been mounted at the Supreme Court by a concerned citizen to the constitutionality of the proposed legislation.

In the circumstances, it would be, as well, for all of us to hold our hand, and await the decision of the Court before any action is taken”.

Before the passing of the Proper Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, the obvious was expected – it would not swiftly and automatically receive the president’s assent.

Despite the president’s past utterances that depicted his subtle subscription to the bill, the current political and economic landscape puts him in an uneasy position especially when his protege Vice President is vying to take over the mantle of the presidency amid an economic downturn.

As it stands, the 1992 Constitution of Ghana does not require the president to wait on the judicial outcome of a bill before deciding to assent or veto it. While it may be prudent to wait on the outcome of imminent litigation to avoid potential future challenges to the law, it fully lies within the president’s constitutional remit to accent or veto it.

The entire reason for waiting on a Supreme Court decision further raises constitutional questions as posed by a co-sponsor of the bill, about the propriety of the Supreme Court’s intervention in the bill process while it has yet to become a law.

From a legal standpoint, article 106 of Ghana’s constitution which stipulates the mode of exercising legislative power in Ghana makes no mention of the Supreme Court in the law-making process.

It can only intervene if a bill upon being ultimately assented to by the president is believed or found to conflict with other fundamental constitutional provisions.

The varied contentions surrounding the bill since its introduction in parliament, have stoked political strategies and machinations akin to a chess game. Former President Mahama has sought to justify his stance on the broader issue by citing a conflict with his Christian religious beliefs.

However, he has so far vehemently refrained from declaring his explicit position on the bill. His contender, Vice President Mahamudu Bawumia has also stayed neutral and refrained from declaring any stance that may not only hurt his campaign but may further entangle the ruling government in a web of having to navigate the economic challenges without the International Monetary Fund (IMF and World Bank’s budget support lifeline as asserted by Ghana’s Ministry of Finance.

Both advocates and proponents of the bill have powerful voting blocs and although these blocs would not be solely driven to the polls based on a candidate’s stance on the bill, their voices and discontentment with the bill may be bound to impact Ghana’s political future. It may also complicate economic governance in the future if international financial partners collectively decide to withdraw aid or credit as a castigatory measure against a future government that assents to the bill.

The Bretton Woods institutions – the IMF and the World Bank have since been drawn into the debate, particularly on how their positions on the bill may affect Ghana’s current bailout program and economic future. According to the IMF, loan conditionality assists nations in resolving balance of payments issues without resorting to actions detrimental to national or global prosperity. Furthermore, these measures seek to protect IMF resources by ensuring the recipient country’s financial stability to facilitate loan repayment and enable other nations to access resources, if necessary, in the future.

It further adds that conditionality is integrated into both financial and non-financial IMF programs to advance toward mutually agreed policy objectives. The mutually agreed policy objectives and performance criteria between Ghana and the IMF as captured in the current Extended Credit Facility (ECF) arrangement make no explicit mention of the latter’s involvement in legislation that borders on making or amending laws regarding Ghana’s socio-cultural set-up.

Thus, the Ministry of Finance’s communiqué about the World Bank’s potential reluctance to release US$250 million financing and its consequential impact on the current IMF bailout program because of the bill may be unfounded. The Bretton-Woods institutions, however, have a legitimate role to play in providing input or expressing their views if they recognize that the bill’s passage can engender significant fiscal and budgetary consequences that could undermine the original or adjusted goals of the bailout program.

In Ghana’s history, rarely do we see a bill pass parliament only to encounter a president’s decision to await a judicial outcome before accenting or vetoing it, especially when the president has the majority in parliament. However, this bill today is unique and the president’s decision to wait for the court’s verdict was a strategic political move, allowing him and his party to distance themselves from the bill’s fate while also providing an escape route for Vice President Mahamudu Bawumia in an election year.

This manoeuvre may aim to insulate both from potential domestic and international backlash, as the non-elected justices of the Supreme Court will ultimately bear responsibility for the bill’s outcome.

These are indeed trying times in Ghana’s political, cultural, and economic history, and the presidency would not easily cede ground to any legislation that may not only affect its political fortunes but also its ability to sustain an economy that is running on its last legs.

The Prampram law maker believes that the President is merely seeking cover behind that so-called lawsuit not to assent to the bill.

Speaking on JoyFM’s Top Story on March 5, he explained that from previous experiences such as the Electronic Transaction Levy, despite a suit pending at the time, the President still assented to it with the explanation that if the Supreme Court ruled against it, the law would be void.

Therefore, for President Akufo-Addo to say he would wait on a court ruling before he decides whether or not to assent to the bill shows that he did not support it in the first place, Mr George argued.

He further argued that the anti-LGBTQ+bill was one that the nation supports; therefore, if the President assented to it despite the court action, he would have been lauded.

 “The President is being the puppet master here with a few other players in here. The President is trying to find an excuse not to sign but again you want to find out if the President is being principled or not. There was a court case on the passage of the e-levy.

“The Supreme Court was yet to rule on the matter. The president’s principled position was that he was going to proceed and if the Supreme Court ruled against it then that law would be invalidated,” he said.

He continued that “Even the constitution, portions of it have been invalidated by the ruling of the Supreme Court, and so the question here is even e-levy the President decided to proceed without waiting for the ruling from the Supreme Court. On the case of Domelevo, the president decided to proceed and act without waiting for the Supreme Court to rule.https://www.youtube.com/embed/6FeQNOqzrDg

“How is it that on this one, a matter that the whole of Ghana [supports] irrespective of ethnicity or religion or social standing, the President thinks that on this one, he wants to wait for the Supreme Court even though the Supreme Court has given some level of precedence relative to what they will do. We will submit the document to them before the end of the week God willing.”

Meanwhile, the Ningo Prampram MP said his next action would be to suggest to other co-sponsors of the bill to bring it back to Parliament if the President announces that he would not assent. He added that this way it would be put to a 2/3rd majority vote.

“We would put this to the test. I cannot speak with authority on this. This is my personal opinion on the matter. Bear in mind, that I am not the only sponsor of the bill. There are eight of us, and we have a coalition we have worked with. We are going to take a stance on this, but my personal position and default position will be that we will bring it back to Parliament if the President indicates that he will not sign after the seven-day period.”

“If he writes to us and says he is not going to sign because he is waiting for the court, so be it. We will explore the option of bringing it back before the house and putting it to a 2/3rd vote,” he said.  

President Akufo-Addo has reassured the international community of Ghana’s commitment to upholding human rights despite the passage of the bill.

Addressing concerns during a diplomatic engagement on March 4, the President emphasised that Ghana remains steadfast in its long-standing reputation for respecting human rights and adherence to the rule of law.

He clarified that the Bill is facing a legal challenge at the Supreme Court and that until a decision is arrived at, no action would be taken by his government on the private Member’s bill.

On Tuesday, March 5, a journalist cum lawyer, Richard Dela Sky filed a lawsuit against Parliament at the Supreme Court regarding the passage of the anti-LGBTQ+ bill.

The reliefs sought by the journalist include an order restraining President Akufo-Addo from assenting to the bill and also preventing the “Speaker of Parliament and the Clerk to Parliament from presenting ‘The Human and Sexual Values Bill, 2024’ to the President of the Republic for his assent.”

Speaking on the same show, Associate Professor at the Ghana Law School, Prof Kwadwo Appiagyei-Atua described certain portions of the writ as premature.

“The writ in some part of it seems premature with regard to the section or the portion that deals with trying to say that the President should not assent to the bill because it contains certain violations of rights and therefore not in conformity with the constitution. That seems to be a weak argument there.

“Even though if we go to article 2, it says an act and what Parliament has done could also be considered an act as in a small ‘a’ but not capital A,” he said.

The Ghana Pentecostal and Charismatic Council (GPCC) has expressed shock with the Finance Ministry’s plea to President Nana Akufo-Addo not to assent the anti-LGBTQ+ bill into law.

In an interview on Adom FM Burning Issues, the General Secretary of GPCC, Reverend Immanuel Tettey stated the Ministry’s caution was out of place and must be resisted.

According to him, the proposed legislation is crucial to upholding Ghana’s cultural values and independence from external influence.

Reverend Tettey stressed that there are countries with worse forms of punishment for people who engage in LGBTQI+ activities, but are doing well and have kept their relationships with other multilateral agencies.

“Kenya, Senegal and other countries have more stringent measures yet the IMF is lending its support. So I can’t fathom why the Ministry of Finance will come out with this. Besides this Bill was in parliament way before the IMF negotiations started and it was not part of the conditions,” he stated.

The Bill which criminalizes and prohibits LGBTQI+ activities, was approved on Wednesday, February 28, 2024.

It has sparked criticism from various quarters, including prominent figures like Professor Audrey Gadzekpo, the Board Chair of the Ghana Center for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana), and other groups coupled with threats of legal action.

It is expected to land on the President’s desk within the week, but the Ministry on Monday cautioned Ghana could lose more than 3 billion dollars in external financing if passed into law.

Meanwhile, Akufo-Addo has said he is awaiting a ruling of the Supreme Court to decide on the Bill as it is currently being challenged.

ALSO READ:

• Burning Issues: Akufo-Addo yet to receive anti-LGBTQI+ bill – MP

• Don’t assent to Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill – Finance Ministry tells Akufo-Addo

Listen to Reverend Tettey in the video attached above:

One of the sponsors for the anti-LGBTQI+ Bill, Emmanuel Kwasi Bedzrah has said it is in the best interest of people who identify with the gay community.

According to the Ho West Member of Parliament (MP), the bill will not criminalise or violate the human rights of individuals but rather protect them.

He gave this assurance on Adom FM Burning Issues, explaining the has been explicitly stated in clause 17 of the Bill.

“The bill is not for everyone but the people who hold themselves as members of the gay community. The bill will rather protect and not violate their human rights as they claim because clause 17 says that we cannot touch anyone who is involved or perceived to be involved.

“We must report them to the police for the law to take its course. So if you touch them you will be caught up with the law and will face the consequences,” he added.

The Bill passed on February 28 by Parliament currently proscribes lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) activities and criminalises their promotion, advocacy and funding.

Persons caught in these acts would be subjected to six months to three-year jail term with promoters and sponsors of these acts bearing a three to five-year jail term.

The Bill would now require presidential assent to come into force but has been met with fierce criticisms amidst calls for Akufo-Addo for reject it.

The critics have argued the bill violates and infringes on fundamental human rights and have threatened to initiate legal action against it.

ALSO READ:

• Ghanaian journalist ‘weeps’ over anti-LGBTQI+ Bill

• Be careful with anti-LGBTQI+ bill, it is needless – CHRAJ

Listen to Mr Bedzrah in the video attached above:

Speaking on Adom FM Burning Issues, the General Secretary, Reverend Immanuel Tettey stated the bill will help to uphold the values that are important to the people of Ghana.

He, therefore, noted none of the religions and Ghanaians at large will sit aloof and accept anything that frowns on morals and values.

Reverend Tettey made these comments in reaction to the Finance Ministry’s caution for the President not to sign the bill which was passed on Wednesday February 28, 2024.

Even though Akufo-Addo has said he is yet to receive the controversial bill, the Ministry on March 4 said it could lead to severe repercussions on the country’s financial support from international organisations like the Bretton Woods Institutions.

But Reverend Tettey has emphasised the importance of upholding Ghana’s unique cultural, and family values and has urged the President to serve the interest of Ghanaians by assenting to the bill.

“The 275 MPs in parliament did not get there by themselves; they are representatives of the people and we are all saying we don’t like LGBTQI+ activities.

“But if they decide not to listen to us, we will advice ourselves in the upcoming election. We will ask our people to reject anyone who wants to ignore our moral, values and impose what we don’t like on us,” he cautioned.

ALSO READ:

• Akufo-Addo speaks on anti-LGBTQI+ bill

• Don’t assent to Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill – Finance Ministry tells Akufo-Addo

• Anti-LGBTQI+ bill: Finance Ministry’s statement a lobbying attempt – Prof Gatsi

The senior lecturer at the University of Ghana Business School (UGBS) says he cannot comprehend why the Ministry will put money ahead of protecting the Ghanaian culture and values.

“We must show the Western world we can be independent economically. If they say they won’t lend support, we will not starve to death. There is no cause for alarm,” he said.

In a statement on March 4, the Ministry asked the President not to sign the Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill into law following its passage on February 28.

The statement bemoaned this could lead to severe repercussions on the country’s financial support from international organisations like the Bretton Woods institutions.

The statement highlighted concerns that the expected US$3.8 billion financing from the First Ghana Resilient Recovery Development Policy Operation (Budget Support), currently awaiting Parliamentary approval, might not be disbursed.

But speaking on Adom FM Burning Issues, Prof Mensah admitted every action comes with economic repercussions.

However, it will be in the best interest of Ghana to lose US$3.8 billion now instead of a generational cost which will be incurred if the bill is not passed.

“The Ministry is panicking given the amounts they are mentioning. There are always economic repercussions but is it is too early to tie the IMF deal to this or predict in this direction

“Losing that money is nothing compared to the generation cost that the LGBTQI+ will create for Ghana. Do we know how much it will cost us to import adult diapers or the medical cost to treat people? We can’t even deal with bed syndrome so how are we going to handle the consequences of LGBTQI+ activities?” he quizzed.

Prof Mensah admonished President Akufo-Addo to be bold in his stance on LGBTQI+ to send a clear signal to the Western world.

“We have our own values and why should we sit for someone in their country to dictate to us? it is not a sign of respect and this goes a long way to prove our dependence on foreign inflow.

“We should take the bull by the horn for the president to sign and he must be bold too because he seems to be wobbling. His statement of waiting for a Supreme Court ruling on the bill is just to buy time and protect his indecision,” he admonished.

ALSO READ:

• Don’t assent to Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill – Finance Ministry tells Akufo-Addo

• Anti-LGBTQI+ bill: Finance Ministry’s statement a lobbying attempt – Prof Gatsi

According to him, although the country depends on external support from bodies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, he [the President] should not be influenced into making a decision that Ghanaians do not support.

Speaking on JoyFM’s Top Story on March 4, he said “This financial assistance, it is a grant or a loan. In fact when I follow the discussions going on what I get is that because Ghanaians are poor and we are going out for financial assistance, you want to just strangle us .

“Something we don’t want as Ghanaians, you want to use your money just to prevent us from doing it. LGBTQ we don’t want it. Ghanaians don’t want it. Majority say they don’t want it; about 98.5% we don’t want it.

“Is this what the UN is actually standing for? I don’t think so. Yes, we are ready to engage government to explain certain things to us.

“We also put forward our ideas and our understanding, but I still hold that poverty should not be used to let somebody succumb to the will of the other. That is what I have to say,” he said.https://www.youtube.com/embed/6RiaKQhoDNI

Rev. Adjei added that he doubts the IMF and the World Bank would cease to support the nation just because it had passed legislation against the practice of same-sex marriage.

“I don’t think because we have agreed to ban LGBTQ+ practices and so on, the UN, IMF and World Bank will not help us. I don’t think so. Maybe they are using it to terrify us. To put fear in us, I don’t think so,” he added.

Rev Adjei added that the Catholic Bishops Conference still stood by the decision for the President to assent to the bill.

On Monday, March 4, the Finance Ministry issued a statement cautioning the President to refrain from signing the anti-LGBTQ+ Bill into law.

According to the ministry, such an action could lead to severe repercussions on the country’s financial support from international organisations like the Bretton Woods institutions.

The statement highlighted concerns that the expected US$300 million financing from the First Ghana Resilient Recovery Development Policy Operation (Budget Support), currently awaiting Parliamentary approval, might not be disbursed if the bill is signed into law.

ALSO READ:

• Don’t assent to Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill – Finance Ministry tells Akufo-Addo

• Minority MPs react to Finance Ministry’s advice against anti-LGBTQ bill

Co-sponsor of the anti-LGBTQ+ bill, Rockson Nelson Dafeamekpor has described the attempt by Civil Society Organisations to challenge the newly passed Anti-LGBTQ+ bill as premature.

According to him, until the bill is assented into law, there is no basis on which it can be challenged in the Supreme Court.

Speaking on JoyFM’s Newsnight on March 4, he explained that challenging a bill in court would imply that the basis for which it is contested is more about a declaration of intent rather than a matter of law.

The South Dayi MP clarified that if the said intent was the grounds for visiting the court, then that was a faulty premise.

“The law is very clear. The bill is in the state that it is, to the extent that it has not been assented to by the President to become a law, it remains a declaration of intention by Parliament.

“So, you can not challenge a declaration of intention in the court of law. Your cause of action cannot rise upon a declaration of intention so that school of thought is faulty. It is built on a faulty premise. I am ready to file an amicus in respect of anybody who will go to challenge this matter.

“Let the law be assented to and given effect as law probably so-called. Then the validity in terms of its constitutionality can be challenged. But until we get there, any call for any person to proceed to the Supreme Court is premature,” he told host, Evans Mensah.

He continued that last year, some individuals proceeded to the Supreme Court to challenge the controversial bill but the court said a bill cannot be challenged unless it becomes law.  

Meanwhile, President Akufo-Addo has reassured the international community of Ghana’s commitment to upholding human rights despite the passage of the bill.

Addressing concerns during a diplomatic engagement, the President emphasised that Ghana remains steadfast in its long-standing reputation for respecting human rights and adherent to the rule of law.

He clarified that the Bill is facing a legal challenge at the Supreme Court and that until a decision is arrived at, no action would be taken by his government on the private Member’s bill.

“l am aware that last week’s bi-partisan passage by Parliament of the Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill, on a Private Member’s motion, has raised considerable anxieties in certain quarters of the diplomatic community and amongst some friends of Ghana that she may be turning her back on her, hitherto, enviable, longstanding record on human rights observance and attachment to the rule of law. I want to assure you that no such back-sliding will be contemplated or occasioned.”

However, President Akufo-Addo noted that the Bill has yet to reach his desk for any formal action.

He indicated that any decision he makes regarding the Bill would be contingent upon the outcome of the lawsuit filed against it in the Supreme Court.

“I think it will serve little purpose to go, at this stage, into the details of the origin of this proposed law, which is yet to reach my desk. But, suffice it to say, that I have learnt that, today, a challenge has been mounted at the Supreme Court by a concerned citizen to the constitutionality of the proposed legislation,” the President added.

ALSO READ:

• Akufo-Addo speaks on anti-LGBTQI+ bill

• Anti-LGBTQI+ Bill: Akufo-Addo won’t sign – Security Analyst [Listen]

The bill is expected to land on President Akufo-Addo’s desk this week, but the Finance Ministry says Ghana could lose more than 3 billion dollars in external financing if the bill becomes law.

Meanwhile, the Member of Parliament for Sagnarigu, Alhassan Bashir Alhassan Fuseini, has urged Ghanaians to take action in support of the anti-LGBTQ+ bill.

The MP stated that the proposed legislation is crucial to upholding the country’s cultural values and independence from external influence.

Speaking to JoyNews on March 4, 2024, he said “Let’s rise up. I am telling you that the streets must be flooded. Everybody must be prepared on this matter, to come onto the streets. Thousands and millions of people must be prepared to flood the streets on this matter to protect our independence and sovereignty.

“We are not going to sit there and allow these external bodies to come and dictate to us and bring policies that are so perverse, that are so backward as far as our culture is concerned.”

Mr Fuseini stated that the European Court of Human Rights says that LGBTQ is not a human right but rather a sexual preference.

According to him, the fact that there is democracy does not mean all things that are punishable by law should be given the freedom to operate.

“Go to the western countries, do they allow people to exercise polygamy? If I want to marry a second wife in any of those countries, would they allow me? And is that not an infringement on my fundamental human rights? Why do they not talk about that in their communities?

According to the MP, these external forces only choose countries that are vulnerable to impose their will on.

“Why are they picking and choosing Ghana as a basis upon which to launch their crusade? It is unacceptable.”

In addition to Mr Fuseini’s comments, the MP for Tamale North, Alhassan Suhuyini, also voiced his opinion on the issue.

He said that the Ministry of Finance has pointed out some potential losses that the passage of the bill could cause.

Mr Suhuyini also pointed out that, there are countries with worse forms of punishment for people who engage in LGBTQ activities, but are doing well and have kept their relationships with other multilateral agencies.

“So I’m surprised that we are afraid that this law will isolate us and affect our relationship with these bilateral institutions. I think that if we rather remain forthright and remain proud of who we are and this law reflects who we are, then we’d be given the respect that we deserve and we will not in any way lose relationships that are mutually beneficial,” he said.

“It is unfortunate that we seem to be focused more on what we may lose and I stress potential and may because there is no evidence that these loses may actually manifest. It’s unfortunate that we seem to be focusing on what we may lose and not thinking of what they may lose if they pursue whatever agenda that they intend to pursue against us.”

Also, the MP for Bole-Bamboi, Yusif Sulemana, expressed disappointment in the Finance Minister, Dr. Amin Mohammed.

The Ministry of Finance in a statement urged President Akufo-Addo to refrain from signing the anti-LGBTQ+ Bill into law.

In the Monday, March 4 release, the Finance Ministry cautioned that such an action could lead to severe repercussions on the country’s financial support from international organisations like the Bretton Woods institutions.

Mr Sulemana went on to say that Dr Amin Adam seems to be more focused on financial considerations than on moral values.

“He should be concerned about the moral decay of this country. He should be concerned about the moral impact that the LGBTQ would bring on us if we allow it to go on. He should be concerned about the children yet to be born and their future. He should be concerned about his children.”

Mr Sulemana also revealed that there is a plan to repeal the bill if it is signed into law.

“They will organise or plan with the judiciary, go to court and then it will be thrown out. We are aware of all these things and calling on morally upright people in the country to stand up.”

The MP noted that the National Democratic Congress (NDC) flagbearer, John Mahama, has taken a stand on the LGBTQ matter publicly and called on the current Vice President, Dr Mahamudu Bawumia, to do same.

“Are you saying that when he [John Mahama] comes into power, he won’t need foreign aid? He is aware of the implications but he has juxtaposed the harm this will cause us vis-à-vis the income or wealth we are going to get from foreign aid, and that’s the perspective from which we have to look at it. It is so shameful, and I am very sad today,” he said.

ALSO READ:

• Don’t assent to Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill – Finance Ministry tells Akufo-Addo

• Reject anti-LGBTQI+ bill – Akufo-Addo told

Mr Bedzrah made these comments on Adom FM Burning Issues amidst public discussions and agitations for the President to assent to the Bill which was passed on February 28.

“Parliament has completed all the work we are supposed to do and it is left with the presidential assent. The Clerk is yet to take to the government Printer, Ghana Publishing Corporation for it to be placed on tinsel for his assent but it is not true the bill will return to parliament,” The MP who was one of the sponsors of the Bill clarified.

Parliament unanimously approved the bill that criminalizes LGBTQ+ activities, as well as their promotion, advocacy, and funding.

Those found guilty could face a jail term ranging from 6 months to 3 years, while those promoting and sponsoring the act could face a jail term between 3 to 5 years.

Amidst intense pressure for Akufo-Addo to assent to the Bill, the Ministry of Finance, has however said otherwise.

In a press release on Monday, the Ministry cautioned that approving the bill could result in significant financial consequences for Ghana.

According to the Finance Ministry’s statement, Ghana stands to lose a substantial amount of World Bank financing, estimating a potential loss of USD$3.8 billion over the next five to six years.

On the part of Akufo-Addo, he says he is awaiting the Supreme Court’s ruling before deciding on the controversial Bill following a court action.

ALSO READ:

• Akufo-Addo speaks on anti-LGBTQI+ bill

• Anti-LGBTQI+ bill: Finance Ministry’s statement a lobbying attempt – Prof Gatsi

According to him, there is no portion of the deal with the International Monetary Fund that says that if Ghana enacted such legislation, it would be a breach of contract.

Speaking on JoyNews’ the Pulse on March 4, he elaborated that upon close examination of the country, no advocacy group was potent enough to obstruct the President from assenting the bill.

Therefore, this was somewhat a form of blackmail from the Finance Ministry, anticipating potential hindrances to securing funds.

Again, he added that this was also a way to sort of justify the President’s intention to not sign the bill.

“This thing is just trying to keep the momentum about lobbying. We do not have those things as conditions in engaging with the World Bank or IMF. There are other minority issues, there are other vulnerable issues in our countries. It is based on those things that we are getting development funding from the World Bank to fund benefit all these classes of people.

“So the World Bank cannot say that because of the Anti-LGBTQ+ issues they will not extend money to us, which of course is a loan that will be paid over – I do not see that.

“What I see is a strong force of lobbying that the law should not be passed. That is where we are now. I am not sure that there is any pressure on us about that. It is all about lobbying. So lobbying is scaling up seriously at the last hour because the bill is on its way to the presidency.

“The President made statements to the extent that he has not seen a force in the country built up in relation to LGBTQ. So if we can have something measured in this form that the Finance Ministry has done then that will be understandable for the President to say, I will not sign the law.

“And for me, that is how I see it. We don’t have a legal relation that says that if you pass anti –LGBTQ then we will not give you money,” he said.

In a press release issued on Monday, March 4, the Finance Ministry cautioned that such action could lead to severe repercussions on the country’s financial support from international organisations like the Bretton Woods Institutions.

The statement highlighted concerns that the expected US$300 million financing from the First Ghana Resilient Recovery Development Policy Operation (Budget Support), currently awaiting Parliamentary approval, might not be disbursed if the bill is signed into law.

ALSO READ:

• Akufo-Addo speaks on anti-LGBTQI+ bill

• Don’t assent to Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill – Finance Ministry tells Akufo-Addo

This according to him is on the back of a challenge mounted at the Supreme Court following the passage of the Bill on Wednesday, February 28, 2024.

Addressing Members of the Diplomatic Corps at Peduase on Monday, Akufo-Addo noted he is yet to receive the Bill.

However, the decision of the court will determine the next line of action.

“The operations of the institutions of the Ghanaian state will determine the future trajectory of the rule of law and human rights compliance in our country,” the President noted.

The Bill criminalizes LGBTQ+ activities, their promotion, advocacy, and funding within the country.

The Bill would now require presidential assent to come into force but has been met with fierce criticisms amidst calls for Akufo-Addo for reject it.

The critics have argued the bill violates and infringes on fundamental human rights and have threatened to initiate legal action against it.

The Ministry of Finance has also pleaded with the President not to assent to the Bill, stating it could result in significant financial consequences for Ghana.

According to the Ministry’s statement, Ghana stands to lose a substantial amount of World Bank financing, estimating a potential loss of USD$3.8 billion over the next five to six years.

Specifically, the impact for 2024 includes a loss of USD$600 million in budget support and USD$250 million for the Financial Stability Fund, adversely affecting Ghana’s foreign exchange reserves and exchange rate stability.

ALSO READ:

• Anti-LGBTQI+ Bill: Akufo-Addo won’t sign – Security Analyst [Listen]

• World Bank warns Ghana of funding cuts over Anti-LGBTQI+ Bill

Read below the President’s remarks:

Ghana’s Parliament on Wednesday approved legislation that could lead to prison sentences of up to three years for identifying as LGBTQ+ and five years for forming or supporting LGBTQI+ organizations.

US State Department spokesperson Matt Miller expressed concerns about the potential consequences of the bill, stating, “So we have made very clear what our opinion is on that law – you can look at my statement yesterday – and we have made that clear in private conversations with the Government of Ghana as well. I don’t think I should get any more specific than that, but if this bill becomes law, it would certainly have a chilling effect on foreign investment and tourism in Ghana”. 

He added that the enactment of the bill could affect U.S. assistance to the country.

“You’ve seen that same chilling effect bear fruit in Uganda, which passed a very similar law in the past, and I can say that should the bill pass, it would potentially have ramifications on U.S. assistance in the country”.

While the bill awaits Akufo-Addo’s assent, he has indicated his willingness to approve it if it aligns with the wishes of the majority of Ghanaians.

The United States provided over $211 million in assistance to Ghana in fiscal year 2022, supporting various sectors including agriculture, malaria prevention, and AIDS combat efforts. The extent to which aid would be affected by the new law remains uncertain.

Although many African nations criminalize same-sex relationships, recent legislative efforts across the continent have sought to reinforce such laws.

Ghanaian parliamentarian Sam George, who sponsored the bill, celebrated its passage online, emphasizing the protection of national values.

However, the proposed legislation drew swift condemnation from the United States, echoing similar criticism directed at Uganda for its harsher anti-LGBTQ+ measures.

State Department spokesperson Matt Miller underscored Ghana’s tradition of tolerance and respect for human rights, expressing concern that the bill could undermine these values.

In Uganda, the law includes severe penalties such as the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality” and life imprisonment for “homosexuality,” prompting the U.S. to restrict $20 million in aid to the country.

Amnesty International has urged President Akufo-Addo not to sign the bill, emphasizing the importance of respecting the human rights of all individuals.

Amnesty’s country director for Ghana, Genevieve Partington, condemned the legislation, citing reports of rights violations against LGBTQ+ individuals since the bill’s introduction in parliament.

ALSO READ:

• Anti- LGBTQI+ Bill: We’re ready for you in court – Prof Gadzekpo told

• Anti-LGBTQI Bill: Sam George issues stern warning to US

This he said was a revelation made to him by some police officers as a message of caution about his clients being detained at the facility.

Mr Afenyo-Markin, who doubles as Efuttu MP disclosed this in reaction to the passage of the anti-LGBTQI+ bill while stressing the need for non-custodial sentence.

“Sodomy takes its roots from the prisons, people get sodomized in our prison and in our cells. I am a practitioner of the law, I have done criminal cases for many years and sometimes when your clients are being sent to cells, the police themselves will tell you that Counsel, make sure ‘sɛɛ omu nfanu nkɔ’ Accra central (make sure that he is not taken to Accra central).

“You ask why, and they tell you ‘ehɔ diɛ ɔmu bɛ yɛnu saasaa, ɔmu bɛ yɛnu sei’ (they will do this and that to him). They tell us, why are we pretending that we don’t know the everyday story on our streets?” he quizzed in an interview on Accra-based TV3.

The Bill passed on Wednesday by Parliament currently proscribes lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) activities and criminalises their promotion, advocacy and funding.

The Bill would now require presidential assent to come into force but has been met with fierce criticisms amidst calls for Akufo-Addo for reject it.

However, the lawmaker before the passage opposed the idea of imposing a custodial sentence on individuals involved in LGBTQ+ activities.

This was after Parliament endorsed a minimum custodial sentence of three years and a maximum of five years for individuals found to be willfully promoting, sponsoring, or supporting LGBTQ+ activities.

He expressed dissatisfaction with the condition of the country’s prisons and contended that, they would not offer the necessary rehabilitation for offenders of the law.

ALSO READ:

• Why Akufo-Addo will assent to anti-LGBTQI+ bill – Foh-Amoaning

• Prof Gadzekpo, others being funded by LGBTQ+ organizations – Sam George claims [Listen]

The bill imposes a prison sentence of up to three years for anyone convicted of identifying as LGBTQ+. It also imposes a maximum five-year jail term for forming or funding LGBTQ+ groups.

MPs frustrated attempts to replace prison sentences with community service and counselling.

Concerns about possible human rights violations have been raised by civil society groups and the international community with the United States warning there may be serious implication for Ghana’s economic development.

In a press release, Matthew Miller, spokesperson of the State Department explained that the framework would threaten all Ghanaians’ constitutionally protected freedoms of speech, press, and assembly.

“The bill would also undermine Ghana’s valuable public health, media and civic spaces, and economy.  International business coalitions have already stated that such discrimination in Ghana would harm business and economic growth in the country,”the statement added.

However, in line with its constitutional mandate, the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice says the president must not assent to the bill to become law.

Commissioner of CHRAJ, Joseph Whittal told Blessed Sogah on Top Story on JoyFM on February 29 that his outfit would support or lead any move to the Supreme Court if the bill is approved.

“We can’t just get up and throw them [LGBTQ persons] out and say, we don’t need them. Your culture gave birth to these people. You need to protect them as well. It’s early days, yes, but I can imagine that we will be close to joining such groups or even taking the lead,”he said.

Ghanaians are currently awaiting the position of President Akufo-Addo as he is expected to assent to the bill or explain to parliament why he is unable to let the bill pass.

ALSO READ:

• Be careful with anti-LGBTQI+ bill, it is needless – CHRAJ

• Prof Gadzekpo, others being funded by LGBTQ+ organizations – Sam George claims [Listen]