Anti-LGBT+: Setting a bad precedent, may lead to courts being flooded to prevent presidential assent to bills – Lawyer

Benjamin Tachie Antiedu, a private legal practitioner, has stated that without caution, individuals may overwhelm our courts with petitions to prevent the president from assenting to bills they disagree with.

He acknowledged that the president did not violate any laws by refusing to sign the anti-LGBT+ Bill, passed by Parliament, until all ongoing cases were resolved. However, the lawyer contended that this could set a dangerous precedent for the country.

He explained that ongoing court cases might prompt people to rush to our courts and file petitions against laws they oppose. Speaking with Kwabena Agyapong on Frontline on Rainbow Radio 87.5FM, he mentioned that the president could cite any reason for refusing to assent to a bill.

"The president can wake up one day and use the dream he had as one of his reasons for refusing to assent to a bill, and he would not have breached our laws," he said. "In my opinion and understanding, the President can cite any reason for refusing to assent to a bill. He can wake up one day and tell us that he had a dream and believes the bill will not help us, and that would be sufficient. The only issue is that, in our scenario, when the president makes that decision, it ends there."

However, he noted that there are processes to follow. For example, if the president refuses to assent, he has a constitutional duty to write back to Parliament and provide his reasons. "That is what we are lacking. But the president can cite any reason for refusing to assent."

"It is not compulsory for a president to assent to a bill. That is the power granted to the president. However, the power was entrusted to him by Ghanaians, and so the people will examine and determine if the powers granted were used in their interests.

That is a political matter to be determined through the political process. Whatever decision the president takes in this instance is within his powers. But that is why the constitution has also put in place an election where the people will decide if they will vote for you based on the decisions you took," he added.

He advised caution to avoid setting a bad precedent for the future.

"Political leadership is subject to accountability. So far, within the law, the president has committed no offence for not assenting to the law. But it could set a bad precedent for all of us because some people could take such steps and file cases over a new law passed.

That will not help us. I don’t want to delve into the merits of the cases, but this could establish a bad precedent that could affect us.

Imagine we pass a tax law with the hope of raising revenue, then someone suddenly takes the matter to court, and the president says he will not speak until the matter has been determined. That is why I am saying political leadership is subject to accountability."

The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, May 8, 2024, indefinitely adjourned the case against the Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill, also known as the Anti-LGBT+ Bill.

The Apex Court found that the documents submitted by the lawyers of the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, contained intemperate language and directed the legal team to file new documents.

Justice Torkornoo, the chair of the panel, stated that each party has the right to present their case as they see fit and reprimanded the speaker’s team, saying, "You have wasted our time and energy for no reason."

Antiedu said the substantive matter has not been dealt with, and what occurred on Wednesday was based on preliminary objections. "The sense of the court is that this is an important matter they want to address. We were all pleased when this matter was broadcast live.

But, the international community has shown more interest in the issue than Ghanaians. The decision to broadcast it live may have been for the international community rather than Ghanaians," he concluded.