NDC MPs Support Supreme Court’s Decision on Anti-LGBTQ Bill Petition

Members of Parliament (MPs) from the National Democratic Congress (NDC) have publicly backed the recent Supreme Court ruling that dismissed a petition challenging the constitutionality of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill. The petition, filed by lawyer and broadcast journalist Richard Dela Sky, had contested the constitutionality of the controversial anti-LGBTQ bill. However, a seven-member panel of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Lovelace Avril Johnson, unanimously ruled that the bill’s constitutionality could not be questioned at this stage since it had not yet become law.

In the wake of the ruling, NDC MP for Madina, Francis-Xavier Sosu, shared his thoughts with JoyNews’ parliamentary correspondent, Kweku Asante, expressing his support for the decision. According to Mr. Sosu, the ruling reaffirmed the importance of respecting legal principles, particularly the separation of powers between Parliament and the judiciary. He emphasized that Parliament is the sole body responsible for creating laws, with the final decision on whether a bill becomes law resting with the President’s assent.

Mr. Sosu criticized the petition filed by Mr. Sky as premature, arguing that the case was filed before the bill had become law. He explained that the Supreme Court’s decision was a vital reaffirmation of the rule of law, and he saw the dismissal of the case as a sign that the judiciary was upholding its constitutional role without overstepping its bounds. “The action filed by Richard Sky was quite premature, and I believe what the Supreme Court did today, with all due respect to Mr. Sky and his lawyers, was simply upholding the rule of law and the separation of powers,” he said.

Mr. Sosu also noted that in recent years, the Supreme Court had been accused of interfering in the legislative processes of Parliament. However, he commended the Court for dismissing the case against the anti-LGBTQ bill, describing it as a departure from the perceived trend of judicial overreach. “Clearly, what the Supreme Court has done today is to distinguish itself or perhaps take a second look at the way it interferes with the work of Parliament,” Mr. Sosu remarked. He stressed that the Court had affirmed that Parliament’s role continues until the President either assents to the bill or provides reasons for withholding assent.

With the case now settled, Mr. Sosu pointed out that it is now up to President Akufo-Addo to either sign the bill into law or communicate any objections he may have. According to the Constitution, if the President chooses not to assent to the bill, he must inform Parliament of the reasons behind his decision, and Parliament can choose to amend the bill or take other actions based on the President’s feedback.

“It is now up to the President to either assent or not assent, but whatever the case, there is a provision in the law for the President to let Parliament know why he doesn’t want to assent, which provisions he has problems with, and what proposals he has for Parliament,” Mr. Sosu said. He further noted that given the limited time left in the current 8th Parliament, it is unclear if the bill will be passed before the end of this session. However, he reassured that if the bill expires with the current Parliament, it could be reintroduced in the 9th Parliament.

“If this bill dies with the 8th Parliament, it will not be the only bill to meet that fate. I have introduced or initiated about 20 private bills, three of which have been passed into law, but only one has received presidential assent,” Mr. Sosu added. He referred to other bills, such as the abolition of the death penalty in the Ghana Armed Forces and the anti-witchcraft bill, which have been passed but remain unsigned by the President.

Mr. Sosu reiterated that while the failure to pass the anti-LGBTQ bill within the 8th Parliament is unfortunate, it is a common occurrence for bills to expire, and it will be up to the incoming 9th Parliament to prioritize such critical legislation. He urged MPs, especially those re-elected, to reintroduce important bills that have yet to receive presidential assent, either through government initiatives or as private members’ proposals.

The Supreme Court’s ruling has major implications for the future of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill. With the Court confirming that the bill’s constitutionality cannot be challenged at this point, the next step lies in the hands of President Akufo-Addo, who will decide whether or not to sign the bill into law. If the President withholds assent, Parliament may take the next steps in accordance with the Constitution, ensuring that the legislative process continues to unfold.