Speaking on Accra-based Channel One TV, Dr. Boakye-Danquah alleged that calls by the Majority Chief Whip and MP for South Dayi, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, and the Minister for Communication, Digital Innovation, and Technology, Samuel Nartey George, to extend the maximum recruitment age to 30 years are politically driven.

“I am deeply troubled that President Mahama wants to fulfil a particular campaign promise that he gave, which is the fact that when he was campaigning to become president of the Republic of Ghana, he said, and the evidence is there, that when he wins, he will recruit children of his political party to come into the security system. He said this at Tamale Stadium,” he alleged.

Dr. Boakye-Danquah dismissed the MPs’ suggestion, insisting that the existing recruitment age limit remains suitable for ensuring the health and fitness of prospective officers.

“We don’t have any problem whatsoever with our current system. The reason why you have people aged either under 20 or 25 going through military training and recruitment is because they have very minimal health risk, they have very minimal exposure to other external influences, and they are very healthy,” he explained.

“They are either not addicted to other social vices, either drinking, smoking, or any of this, and if you pick people who are above 30, the risk is high they either have issues with low and high blood pressure, they have some addiction issue, or they have interacted too much with society,” he added.

Meanwhile, Mr. Dafeamekpor has hinted at the possibility of legal action should the Ghana Armed Forces (GAF) refuse to review the existing maximum age requirement.

Source: Adomonline 

ALSO READ:

• GAF is not dumping ground for ‘overage party foot soldiers’ – Ntim Fordjour 
• Sam George replies Ntim Fordjour over “NDC foot soldiers” remark in military age limit…

The lawmaker has maintained that medical fitness, rather than age, should serve as the determining factor for enlistment.

Speaking on Accra-based Citi FM, Mr. Dafeamekpor argued that the existing age restriction should correspond with the National Youth Authority Act, 2016 (Act 939), which classifies “youth” as persons aged between 15 and 35 years.

“I intend to test this matter because, you see, we need to test systems to let systems work. And when systems are supposed to work, they must work within the existing legal framework. We must all obey the law,” he said.

He further stated that the Armed Forces could adopt an age bracket consistent with the law, as long as applicants satisfy the medical criteria for service.

“I won’t have any problem if the armed forces say that the person between the ages of 15 years and 35 years is eligible to apply, but subject to a medical fitness test, because in a lot of countries, persons below 18 years are eligible to be recruited into the army, subject to parental consent,” he noted.

Mr. Dafeamekpor cautioned that if the GAF ignores the call for reform, he would be compelled to pursue legal redress.

“So this matter must be tested; if the army resists this call, it may leave me with no option but to seek a remedy in the judicial forum. Our army is constitutionally established and given effect to it under Article 102 by Parliament, and subsequently with legislation such as the National Youth Authority Act, which is the law that governs the youth bracket of this country, whether the army can continue to conduct its business without recourse to this laid down legislation,” he explained.

Earlier, in a post on his official X (formerly Twitter) page, Mr. Dafeamekpor revealed that several party supporters had raised concerns about the current age ceiling.

He also cited comparative examples showing that nations such as Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Togo, Nigeria, and the United States allow enlistment into the military well into one’s 30s or beyond.

Source: Adomonline 

ALSO READ:

• GAF is not dumping ground for ‘overage party foot soldiers’ – Ntim Fordjour 
• Sam George replies Ntim Fordjour over “NDC foot soldiers” remark in military age limit…

His comments follow the ongoing Ghana Armed Forces recruitment exercise, which has sparked public debate over eligibility requirements, especially age restrictions.

In a post on X (formerly Twitter) on Wednesday, October 8, 2025, Mr. George stated that Ghana needs to modernise its enlistment policies to match contemporary realities and provide equal opportunities for citizens willing to serve.

“I honestly believe it is time for our beloved nation to re-examine the maximum age for enlistment into our military services,” he wrote.

I honestly believe it is time for our beloved Nation to re-examine the maximum age for enlistment into our military services.

There are people in their 30s who are physically fit and sound enough to serve their Nation. We must not deny them this opportunity simply because of… pic.twitter.com/EKLyfOherF

— Sam ‘Dzata’ George 🦁🇬🇭 (@samgeorgegh) October 8, 2025

“There are people in their 30s who are physically fit and sound enough to serve their nation. We must not deny them this opportunity simply because of their age. There is precedence across the world. I believe an upper limit of 35 years would serve our young people better. Let’s nurture their dreams and not kill it.”

Joining the discussion, Majority Whip and MP for South Dayi, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, also expressed support for the proposal on X.

He noted that several party supporters had raised concerns about the existing age limit and cited examples from countries such as Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Togo, Nigeria, and the United States, where enlistment is permitted well into one’s 30s or beyond.

“In Ghana, we can extend our age limit to say 35 or even 40 years, depending on medical fitness and non-combatant roles. We need new ways of doing things. For God and Country,” Mr. Dafeamekpor posted.

I have had many calls from our Party foot soldiers regarding the Army Recruitment & max age for prospective Applicants. They aren’t happy.

So I decided to look at some countries & their set standards in this matter.

These are my findings:

AFRICA:
1. Benin
Minimum: 21 for…

— Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, Esq. MP. (@etsedafeamekpor) October 8, 2025

Both lawmakers believe that increasing the age limit would not only create opportunities for more Ghanaians but also strengthen the Armed Forces with dedicated and experienced recruits.

Their call comes as the military continues its recruitment drive amid growing discussions about fairness, inclusivity, and the need to update recruitment policies to reflect modern national security demands.

Source: Adomonline 

ALSO READ:

• I’ll ensure regional balance in military recruitment – Omane Boamah

• GAF announces nationwide 2025 recruitment exercise

Speaking in an interview with Citi FM, Mr. Dafeamekpor described such proposals as “illogical,” stressing that no instrument can override an entrenched constitutional provision.

“No process can succeed because any instrument, whether a legislative or constitutional instrument, that will amplify the procedure under 146 cannot vary, deviate, or depart from what is already captured in concrete under 146. The clamour for an instrument that will depart from what the constitution provides is an illogical reasoning because the instrument will be a derivative of what the constitution provides. It can only mirror and give flesh to what the constitution stipulates, it cannot depart from it,” he argued.

He, however, admitted that supplementary rules could be introduced to enhance the existing process without altering its core.

“You can only add flesh to it, for instance, when they say prima facie determination must be made, pursuant to the decision in the Agyei Twum versus Attorney-General case, then maybe a timeline would be provided. But you can’t say that a prima facie determination can’t take place,” he clarified.

His comments come amid renewed public debate after President John Dramani Mahama, acting under Article 146, removed Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo. The decision has fueled calls for reforms to tighten the process, with critics arguing that the current framework appears more flexible compared to procedures for removing the heads of the other two arms of government.

Source: Adomonline

Her removal, announced on Monday, September 1, 2025, was carried out under Article 146(9) of the 1992 Constitution. According to a statement from the Presidency, the decision followed the recommendation of a committee established under Article 146(6) to investigate a petition submitted by a citizen, Daniel Ofori.

The dismissal took immediate effect.

Speaking in an interview on Channel One TV, Dafeamekpor rejected claims that the grounds for the Chief Justice’s removal were weak.

“It’s absolutely incorrect for Hassan Tampuli [Gushegu MP] and some others to suggest, however whimsical it is, that the grounds underpinning these petitions that went before the Article 146 Committee were whimsical and frivolous. There were no frivolities at all,” he stressed.

Source: Adomonline

Speaking on Accra-based Channel One TV, the South Dayi MP stressed that Mrs. Torkornoo could challenge both the findings and recommendations of the committee that recommended her dismissal.

Citing precedent, he said:
“When Charlotte Osei [former Electoral Commission chairperson] was removed under Article 46 procedure, Kweku Baako went to the Supreme Court to challenge it. The Chief Justice can also go to the Supreme Court to challenge the findings and recommendations of the committee, which she has the right to do.”

Mr. Dafeamekpor emphasized that a removal under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution does not necessarily end the matter.

“Nobody should think this is the end. Kweku Baako didn’t find favour with the court. But it doesn’t mean that the findings of the committee cannot be challenged in the Supreme Court; they can,” he added.

Justice Torkornoo was removed from office on Monday, September 1, 2025, after President John Dramani Mahama acted on the recommendation of a committee established under Article 146(6).

The panel, chaired by Supreme Court Justice Gabriel Pwamang, concluded a four-month inquiry and found sufficient grounds for her removal.

A statement from the Presidency said the decision took immediate effect, explaining that Article 146(9) of the Constitution obliges the President to act in accordance with the committee’s recommendations.

ALSO READ:

• Gertrude Torkornoo was punished for following the rules – Former AG fires back

• Mahama signs order removing Torkornoo as Chief Justice and Supreme Court Judge

Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin vociferously called for South Dayi MP Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor to be “restrained!” amid heated exchanges.

The outburst occurred as Justice Dzamefe responded to questions, with Mr. Afenyo-Markin raising a formal protest to the Chairman of the Committee, Bernard Ahiafor, about the conduct of Mr. Dafeamekpor.

“Chairman, I want to register a protest on record,” the Minority Leader began, visibly agitated.

He then directed his concerns toward a colleague seated immediately to the Chairman’s right, understood to be Mr. Dafeamekpor.

“The interjections, though not on record—those interjections are becoming too loud and too many, and we’ve started well,” Mr. Afenyo-Markin stated, expressing his displeasure.

Emphasising the gravity of the ongoing parliamentary duty, Mr. Afenyo-Markin urged for decorum.

“We are discharging a constitutional duty. If it were to be on a personal level, I would say, ‘My Lord, please, I pass you’,” he explained, drawing a distinction between personal interactions and official proceedings.

He voiced concern over how such disruptions could be misconstrued by the public.

His plea culminated in a direct appeal to the Chair:

“Please restrain him! Please restrain him; it must not continue,” he insisted.

Mr. Ahiafor proceeded to inform all committee members to control their emotions.

“All other members are accordingly restrained,” he stated.

In response to the Minority Leader’s protest and the Chairman’s directive, an immediate reaction was heard from Mr. Dafeamekpor, asserting, “Were you not interjecting, were you not? Did anybody protest?”

The clash briefly halted the vetting proceedings for Justice Dzamefe, underscoring the often-tense political dynamics that play out during the scrutiny of high-profile government appointments.

The committee subsequently moved to restore order and continued with the nomination process.

This is not the first time similar exchanges have occurred during the current Parliament.

It could be recalled that chaos erupted in Parliament during the vetting of ministerial nominees by the Appointments Committee on Thursday, January 30, leading to property damage and the suspension of proceedings.

Following the incident, the act was vehemently condemned by the public, prompting the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, to establish a committee to investigate the chaos and identify the Members of Parliament responsible for fuelling the disturbances.

The Speaker also suspended four MPs—Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, Frank Annoh-Dompreh, Alhassan Sulemana Tampuli, and Jerry Ahmed Shaib—for their involvement in the chaos.

However, the suspension was later revoked following a plea from the leaders of the Minority and Majority sides of the chamber.

ALSO READ:

• Justice Dzamefe laments unimplemented 2014 World Cup inquiry recommendations

• Justice Dzamefe pushes for virtual courts

At a press conference on Friday, January 31, Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin criticized Dafeamekpor’s leadership style, accusing him of bullying tactics and undermining Bernard Ahiafor, the Chairman of the Appointments Committee.

“To my respected friend Rockson-Nelson Etse Kwami Dafeamekpor, if he thinks he is still in opposition and intends to be a bully, he will meet his match. Dafeamekpor has gained notoriety for shouting, yelling, undermining his chairman, interrupting proceedings, and even clashing with his Majority Leader. He describes himself as the avant-garde of the government,” Afenyo-Markin remarked.

The Minority Leader argued that Dafeamekpor’s actions have disrupted Parliamentary proceedings and strained cohesion within the Majority caucus.

He urged President John Mahama and his government to reconsider their decision to appoint Dafeamekpor to the position.

“The role of the Majority Chief Whip is to be a key negotiator and diplomat in the Chamber. If Dafeamekpor succeeded in opposition, he must now adapt to being in government. President Mahama and his team should rethink their choice for this critical position,” he added.

READ ALSO:

• Prof Gyampo vows to tackle systemic wrongs as new GSA CEO
• I’ll probe $77m ambulance maintenance contract – Health Minister-designate

The MP argues that the ruling is valid because the Speaker’s move is backed by provisions of Article 97(1)(g) and (h) of the 1992 Constitution.

Mr. Dafeamekpor is therefore praying the court to compel Speaker Bagbin to affirm his declaration on the four seats on Thursday, October 17, 2024.

In the writ of summons, the MP requested that the Speaker declare that the four legislators have vacated their seats to contest the upcoming election as independent candidates.

He also demanded that any composition of Parliament after the declaration involving the affected members is unlawful and illegal.

“An order should be directed at the Defendant to ensure that Mr. Andrew Amoako Asiamah, Member of Parliament for Fomena; Mrs. Cynthia Mamle Morrison, Member of Parliament for Agona West; Mr. Kwadwo Asante, Member of Parliament for Sohum; and Mr. Peter Yaw Kwakye-Ackah, Member of Parliament for Amenfi Central, no longer have access to the chamber of Parliament to participate in parliamentary proceedings.”

On October 18, the Supreme Court issued a stay of execution on Speaker Bagbin’s declaration regarding the four seats, following a petition by former Tamale South MP and former Minority Leader, Haruna Iddrisu.

The application to stay the ruling was based on an ex parte application filed at the apex court by NPP MPs.

This allowed the Court to consider the NPP MPs’ request without requiring the participation or response of the Speaker or other parliamentary authorities at this stage.

ALSO READ:

• There is significant inconsistency in Parliament’s vacant seats case – Kweku Paintsil

• Supreme Court’s ruling on vacant seats ‘very solid’ – Bobby Banson

Read the full writs of summons below:

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

Although he didn’t go into the reasons this aspiration didn’t materialize, he stressed his enduring love for the sport.

In an interview with the media, the outspoken National Democratic Congress (NDC) MP also disclosed the contribution of notable boxers from the Volta Region including Willie Klutse.

Reflecting on his affinity for sports, particularly football and boxing, Mr. Dafeamekpor shared his admiration for the region’s boxing talent.

His comments were prompted by the host’s inquiry about a cap he wore with the inscription ‘Neho,’ sparking a conversation about his connection to Ghanaian boxing legend Isaac Agbeko.

“I’m a sports enthusiast; football, boxing. You know, I nearly became a boxer… in fact, one of the greatest boxers came from the Volta Region: Willie Klutse and co-sportsmen. So, Volta has had its fair share of very good boxers,” he said.

ALSO READ:

Kumawood actress flaunts heavy curves in latest video

How I caught a senior pastor bonking colleague’s wife in his…

I’ll be a better President than I was – Mahama

The MP, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, had filed a challenge at the Supreme Court against the approval of new ministerial and deputy ministerial nominees.

But when the case was called on Wednesday, both Mr Dafeamekpor and his lawyer were not present, a situation Nii Kpakpo explained was because they were not served any notice.

However, the bailiff, Joshua Benning told the Supreme Court that a hearing notice and affidavit in opposition documents which were sent to the law firm were rejected.

This, he explained was because “an order had been made by the lawyer Nii Kpakpo Samoa Addo not to receive any service.”

But in an interview, Nii Kpakpo fought off the claims, stating the bailiff was in his office but did not meet him.

“This bailiff called in the morning at exactly 10:50 am on Tuesday [March 26]. At that time, I was not in the office so I sent him the number of Mr Rockson and told him to call and serve whatever process you have. He responded to the message at 10:57 am, acknowledged and said received with thanks.

“That was the last I heard from the said bailiff,” he said in an interview on Accra-based 3FM.

To vindicate himself and his client, Mr Addo says he decided to release CCTV footage from the bailiff’s visit, adding Mr Benning wasn’t aware he was captured.

“My front desk people told him that they have seen my name on it but he should wait for me to come because I was not in the office at that particular time.

“Then he told them he was making a phone call and return nobody had signed the process. He left the process there and never came back. I have released the CCTV recording of his entire period within our office, including the voice audio for you to listen to exactly the interaction between himself and my front desk staff,” he added.

Meanwhile, the Apex court dismissed the application, stating it lacked direct relevance to the current nominees in Parliament, as it mainly concerned reassigned ministers.

ALSO READ:

• Supreme Court throws out Dafeamekpor’s case against Akufo-Addo ministerial nominees

• Ministerial nominees’ approval: Dafeamekpor’s lawyer reacts to court’s ruling

This follows claims by the court bailiff that the plaintiff refused service of the notice.

The MP, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, had filed a challenge at the Supreme Court against the approval of new ministerial and deputy ministerial nominees.

In the wake of the absence of the MP and his lawyer on Wednesday, the bailiff, Joshua Benning told the Supreme Court that a hearing notice and affidavit in opposition documents which were sent to the law firm were rejected.

This he explained was because “an order had been made by the lawyer Nii Kpakpo Samoa Addo not to receive any service.”

But in an interview, Nii Kpakpo said otherwise, stating the substantive court was their focus.

“We didn’t have the benefits of the hearing notice because I never stepped in the office yesterday. The court has gone ahead to decide on our injunction application. The substantive case is still pending and we are waiting for the court to call us and we will go and attend to it.

“Also, we have a mandamus application coming up in the High Court on the 8th in respect of the LGBTQ matter so we have moved on and we are focused on that one while we wait for the substantive case to be called. We have had our day in court. The court has ruled. That is all that you can do as a citizen of the country,” he told Accra-based Citi FM.

Meanwhile, the apex court dismissed the application, stating it lacked direct relevance to the current nominees in Parliament, as it mainly concerned reassigned ministers.

ALSO READ:

• Why hearing of Dafeamekpor’s injunction application was expediated

• Supreme Court throws out Dafeamekpor’s case against Akufo-Addo ministerial nominees

His comment follows the criticisms by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) against Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, in the scheduling of political cases in the Supreme Court.

The NDC accused the judicial service of bias, questioning why the MP’s application filed on March 18th will be heard earlier than that of journalist, Richard Dela Sky filed on March 5, 2024.

But addressing journalists on Wednesday after the Supreme Court dismissed the application, Mr Dame explained the court act and constitution allows that.

He stated he therefore cannot comprehend the criticism against the Supreme Court for hearing this matter quickly.

In his lawsuit against the Speaker of Parliament (1st defendant) and the Attorney General (2nd defendant), Dafeamekpor argued that the President should have sought parliamentary approval before reassigning ministers whose appointments were revoked.

However, the application was deemed frivolous and an abuse of court processes by the apex court.

Despite the absence of Mr Dafeamekpor and his lawyer, the court proceeded with the case and ruled against it.

The five judges who presided over the case were Justice Kingsley Koomson, Justice Mariama Owusu, Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo (Presiding), Justice Amadu Tanko, and Justice Yaw Darko Asare.

ALSO READ:

• Godfred Dame’s reaction to claims he only has interest in cases that favour govt

• Supreme Court throws out Dafeamekpor’s case against Akufo-Addo ministerial nominees

According to him, all cases are of equal interest and given same attention.

He made these comments while addressing journalists after the Supreme Court dismissed an injunction application by South Dayi MP, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor against President Akufo-Addo’s ministerial nominees on Wednesday.

“We have filed a relevant affidavit in opposition in that matter, so I think all these comments are unwanted and indeed are baseless. We actually filed our opposition to the affidavit in answer to the Richard Sky matter before we filed the affidavit in answer today to this one,” he stated.

Mr Dame on Wednesday came under condemnation following the expeditious hearing of the application filed on March 18th as against that of journalist, Richard Dela Sky filed on March 5, 2024.

However, the Minister insists the step was in the right direction.

“It is most instructive that parliament itself was opposed to this application for interlocutory injunction by Dafeamekpor and I find it very interesting because the same Speaker of Parliament who earlier on adjourned proceedings in my view wrongly,  on account of the pendency of this application then later on somersaulted and came to the supreme court and opposed the application and that is a point of interest to me. 

“I think it shows clearly that the application clearly was frivolous and it ought not to be any manipulation of what went on in court, even parliament itself was opposed to the application,” he added.

Meanwhile, both the lawmaker and his lawyer, Nii Kpakpo Samoa Addo were absent when the case was called, a development the Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo who was not happy with expressed reservations.

In his lawsuit against the Speaker of Parliament (1st defendant) and the Attorney General (2nd defendant), Dafeamekpor argued that the President should have sought parliamentary approval before reassigning ministers whose appointments were revoked.

ALSO READ:

• Dafeamekpor hasn’t filed injunction against new ministers – AG tells Speaker

• Supreme Court throws out Dafeamekpor’s case against Akufo-Addo ministerial nominees

According to him, Parliament and the Executive are equal branches of government and that parliament is not subordinate to the executive.

Speaking on JoyNews, Mr Dafeamekpor said that a press release from the office of the President, which asked Parliament not to transmit the anti-LGBTQ+ bill to the President until a matter before the Supreme Court was resolved, was disrespectful.

“So, when you are conducting yourself in relation to another organ of state, you must conduct yourself within the protocols and the ethics of those offices. You do not communicate with parliament as though we are subsidiary to the Executive. The Clerk to Parliament is akin to the Chief of Staff of the Presidency; he is akin to the Judicial Secretary who occupies an office and operates under the office, operates and serves the Judicial Counsel, and serves the Chief Justice,” he said on the AM Show on March 20, 2024.

According to Mr. Dafeamekpor, the Secretary to the President, Bediatuo Asante, was speaking to his superiors when he wrote the press release, and his language and tone should have been more respectful.

He said that Bediatuo was still secretary to the President when the minority in Parliament challenged the constitutionality of the e-levy law and that the office of the presidency used the “presumption of the function of the President” argument in that case.

Mr. Dafeamekpor said the same “presumption of the function of the President” applies to the current LGBTQ case.

“If you look at the stipulation in Article 1068 of the Constitution in respect of this matter, there are clear timelines to be followed when this happens. When the bill goes through the mill and is passed into law and remitted to the office of the president, the president cannot say that he would not receive the bill.

“He must receive the bill and take steps. What steps are available to him? Within seven days, you must inform parliament that instead of giving parliament an immediate accent to the bill, ‘I have referred it to the Council of the State for advice, and in that referral to the Council of the State, the president is to indicate to the Council of the State the portion of the law or part of the law that he thinks they must pay attention to and advise him.

“He has to give that indication; if he is not making a referral to the Council of the State and wants to veto it properly, he must, within 14 days of exercising that veto, inform parliament regarding a portion of the bill proposing amendments to them and justifying the amendment.”

READ ALSO:

• Akufo-Addo only wanted to become President, he doesn’t care about Ghanaians…

• MPs clash in Parliament over ‘questionable’ Zipline contract

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]

He alleged that, Gyan’s crucial missed in the quarter-final game against Uruguay, which would have made Ghana the first African country to play in the semi-final of the World Cup, was politically influenced.

Speaking to Radio XYZ, Mr. Dafeamekpor alleged that, the former Black Stars captain has been a lifelong supporter of the governing New Patriotic Party (NPP) and did not want glory for their rivals.

In a response, Asamoah Gyan said the NDC MP is just seeking attention for his autograph.

“Maybe he wants an autograph. Don’t worry. I will sign one for him soon,” the former Sunderland forward quipped on X (formerly Twitter).

The former Black Stars captain has come under a barrage of attacks after he was named a member of the NPP manifesto committee.

The 38-year-old will head the party’s sub-committee on Youth and Sports under Vice President and NPP flagbearer, Dr Bawumia.

In spite of the attacks, Asamoah Gyan said he is focused and ready to contribute his quota to nation building.

As Africa’s top scorer at the World Cup, with six goals to his name, he is resolved to bring his experience on board to revive Ghana’s football.

READ ALSO

• Asamoah Gyan deliberately missed 2010 World Cup penalty – NDC MP

• Jordan Ayew’s wonderful strike against Everton nominated for Premier League Goal…

In their second Mundial appearance, the Black Stars had an opportunity to advance to the semi-finals, with the score tied at 1-1.

However, Gyan’s penalty struck the crossbar, ultimately leading to Ghana’s loss in the ensuing penalty shootout.

Mr. Dafeamekpor, who is a member of the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC) suggested that, Gyan’s supposed deliberate miss was driven by his political allegiance to the New Patriotic Party (NPP).

Speaking on Radio XYZ, Dafeamekpor claimed, “I believe Asamoah Gyan intentionally squandered that penalty because it was under the NDC’s tenure. It is now clear to me that he missed the penalty in the 2010 World Cup and the African Cup deliberately so that the NDC government would not receive the acclaim.”

He continued, “Asamoah Gyan is now associated with the Bawumia campaign team. That’s a significant issue because when a public figure becomes partisan, I can confidently say it is for political reasons that he missed that penalty, ensuring the NDC government did not receive recognition. It is truly distressing.”

Mr. Dafeamekpor’s remarks came after Gyan was recently named as part of the New Patriotic Party’s 2024 manifesto committee.

These comments have further fueled the ongoing criticism about Gyan’s impartiality after accepting the role in Dr. Bawumia’s campaign team.

Despite the controversy, Gyan holds an impressive record such as being Africa’s all-time top scorer at the World Cup with six goals and being the Black Stars’ all-time top scorer with 51 goals.

READ ALSO

• I’m not perturbed about criticism – Asamoah Gyan on joining Bawumia’s campaign team [Video]

• I can help develop sports with my experience – Asamoah Gyan