[ad_1]
One of the advocates against the anti-gay bill, an Emerita Professor of the University of Ghana, Takyiwaa Manuh has said she was disappointed in the dismissal of the injunction application against Parliament in relation to the bill.
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the application on Wednesday, July 19.
A nine-member panel chaired by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo held that a prima facie case had not been made to convince the court of injuncting the parliamentary proceedings.
Speaking to journalists after the court hearing, Prof Takyiwaa Manuh said “It was always going to be difficult, this is a case of first impression, the courts are usually quite reluctant to interfere with another branch which is parliament. We are disappointed but this is not the end of it, we have made our concerns several times, and the bill has not been passed so today [Wednesday] all these are about the procedures, and the manner in which it was done but there are substantive issues about the contents of the bill, we will get to that later.”
On Wednesday, July 5, Parliament adopted the motion of the Constitutional, Legal and Parliament Committee on the Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill popularly known as the anti-gay bill.
This followed the second reading of the Bill on that day.
After the second reading, members of the House were given the opportunity by the Second Deputy Speaker, Andrew Amoako Asiamah, to debate the motion.
Among the members who contributed to the debate was Minister of Local Government, Decentralisation and Rural Development Dan Botwe, who described as “madness” the activities of lesbians, gays, bi-sexuals, and transgender (LGBT) humans.
He said it is a Satanic force that should not be allowed to fester in the country.
For him, “eternal vigilance” should be exercised by the country beyond the passage of the Bill.
But the Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin was cited for contempt regarding the anti-gay bill.
This was after a researcher Dr Amanda Odoi filed a lawsuit at the Supreme Court asking the court to sanction the Speaker for showing contempt and disregard for court processes.
“That the respondent’s clear, intentional and continuous disregard of the court process necessitates the Respondent being sanctioned for contempt in the public interest and to protect the dignity of the Court,” the Court documents state.
“That by his conduct in directing or causing Parliament to proceed to a Second Reading of the Bill, in full knowledge of the pending suit and related interlocutory injunction application, the Respondent has disregarded and disrespected the authority of this Court.
“That such disregard interferes with the outcome of the pending litigation, brings the administration of justice into disrepute and undermines public confidence in the judicial system.”
The contempt application was however withdrawn following the dismissal of the injunction application.
[ad_2]
Source link
