The Supreme Court is set to deliver its judgment today on two landmark lawsuits challenging the legality of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, commonly known as the anti-gay bill.
The ruling, which is expected to significantly impact the country’s legal and human rights landscape, follows months of intense public debate and political division.
The bill, criticized by human rights groups and supported by religious and traditional institutions, aims to criminalize activities linked to the advocacy of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI) rights.
If passed into law, the bill would impose penalties on individuals promoting or funding LGBTQI-related activities and extend criminal liability to those providing indirect support to such causes.
Proponents argue that the bill is essential to protecting Ghanaian cultural and family values, which they believe are under threat from foreign ideologies.
However, opponents view it as a violation of fundamental human rights, including freedom of expression, association, and equality before the law.
The lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the bill were filed by Richard Dela Sky, a journalist and lawyer, and Amanda Odioi, an advocate for equality and inclusivity.
Proponents of the bill argue that it is necessary to safeguard Ghanaian cultural and family values, which they claim are under threat from what they see as the imposition of foreign ideologies.
Opponents, however, decry the bill as a violation of fundamental human rights, including freedoms of expression, association, and equality under the law.
The lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the anti-gay bill were brought by Richard Dela Sky, a journalist and lawyer, and Amanda Odioi, an equality and inclusive advocate.
Their petitions to the Supreme Court raise two critical legal arguments stating that Parliament did not meet the required quorum as outlined in Articles 102 and 104 of the Constitution when the bill was passed.
The plaintiffs allege that these thresholds were not met during the legislative process for the anti-gay bill. They argue that the lack of quorum renders the entire process unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.
