Richard Sky's suit against Anti-LGBT+ Bill 'dead on arrival' - Former MP

Richard Sky's suit against the anti-LGBT+ Bill has been deemed "dead on arrival" by Alex Abban, a former Member of Parliament for Gomoa West.

Alex Abban stated that since it appears the Bill has not yet been sent to the president for assent, it can be called back, making this suit dead on arrival.

Speaking on the Big Issues on Citi TV, he stated, "I think this (suit) will not see the light of the day. If you look at the law-making processes, you have to look at Article 106 of the constitution and that whole exercise with the assent of the president to a bill that is passed, unless, of course, the president has some reservation either by using Article 90... now, when a bill has not even been given to the president or when the president has not signed it, so far as it is a bill for parliament, they could still even call it back.

"So, for now, it is a week in progress, so if somebody goes to court to say get the president not to assent the Bill, it has not become an act yet. The Supreme Court may say what you are bringing to us is not already a law; how are we going to invoke our jurisdiction?"

Richard Sky filed a motion before the Supreme Court on March 5, urging the president to refrain from assenting to "The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2024."

This move comes amidst growing concerns and controversies surrounding the legislation, sparking a nationwide debate.

The motion filed by Richard Sky outlines several reliefs sought, each grounded in constitutional provisions and fundamental rights.

Among the reliefs sought are declarations that the passage of the Bill by parliament contravened various articles of the constitution, rendering it null, void, and of no effect.

Moreover, the motion challenges the Speaker of Parliament's decision to allow the passage of the Bill, alleging a contravention of constitutional provisions regarding the imposition of charges on public funds and the authority of parliament.

In addition to questioning the legality of the Bill's passage, the motion asserts that parliament lacked the requisite quorum to approve the legislation, further highlighting procedural irregularities.

One significant aspect of the motion is the request for an injunction restraining the Speaker of Parliament and the Clerk of Parliament from presenting the Bill to the president for assent.

Furthermore, the motion seeks to prevent the president from assenting to the Bill, citing concerns over its potential impacts on individual freedoms and rights; particularly contentious are provisions within the Bill criminalizing same-sex relationships and related advocacy efforts, prompting calls for judicial intervention to safeguard human rights.

NAY/AE