KEY POINTS
- The Supreme Court dismissed Richard Sky’s review application.
- Justices expressed frustration over Sky’s absence in court.
- The anti-gay bill’s constitutionality remains under legal scrutiny.
A review application contesting the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the legitimacy of Parliament’s enactment of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill—also referred to as the anti-gay bill—has been dismissed.
When the case was summoned on Monday morning, Richard Sky, the petitioner, through his lawyer Paa Kwasi Abaidoo, withdrawn the application. Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie led a nine-member review panel that later rejected the case as withdrawn.
Supreme Court dismisses review of anti-gay bill challenge
Bench members expressed their annoyance with Sky’s nonattendance in court. Sylvia Adisu, the chief state attorney, urged the court to charge the petitioner with expenses.
According to Myjoyonline, when the petitioner summoned nine Supreme Court judges and then withdrew the matter, Justice Henrietta Joy Abena Nyarko Mensa-Bonsu asked if this was fair. The president of the panel was quite unhappy at Sky’s absence before formally dismissing it.
Background: Why the anti-gay bill is controversial
The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, a bipartisan private member’s bill, was approved by Parliament on February 28, 2024. If the president signs it into law, those who participate in or encourage same-sex activities will face a minimum prison term of three years and a maximum of five years.
In separate Supreme Court cases, Sky and another plaintiff, Dr. Amanda Odoi, have claimed that the bill’s enactment violates Act 921 and Article 108 of the 1992 Constitution. They argue that because it was a private member’s bill, it did not comply with constitutional requirements, especially as it may force the state to pay for the incarceration of guilty people.
The lawsuits did not properly use the Supreme Court’s competence to interpret and implement the Constitution, the court decided in a majority ruling on December 18, 2024. The court also decided that the challenges were premature because the bill had not yet become law.
Sky wanted this decision to be reconsidered before he finally withdrew his candidacy.
