The Supreme Court has dismissed a review application filed by journalist and lawyer Richard Sky, challenging its earlier ruling on the constitutionality of Parliamentâs passage of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, widely known as the anti-gay bill.
The application was struck out on Tuesday, February 26, after Sky, through his lawyer, Paa Kwasi Abaidoo, withdrew the case when it was called. The nine-member review panel, presided over by Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, accordingly dismissed the case as withdrawn.
Despite striking out the case, the panel expressed dissatisfaction over Skyâs absence from court.
Chief State Attorney Sylvia Adisu urged the bench to impose costs on the applicant for summoning the highest court only to withdraw his case.
Justice Prof. Henrietta Joy Abena Nyarko Mensa-Bonsu questioned whether it was appropriate for Sky to call upon nine Justices of the apex court without appearing in person.
Justice Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu also raised concerns, stating that, as a legal practitioner, Sky should have been present.
However, Justices Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi and Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu opposed the call for costs, arguing that the case was of public interest and imposing financial penalties on the applicant was unnecessary.
Before dismissing the case, the panelâs president reiterated the courtâs disappointment over the applicantâs absence.
Background
On February 28, 2024, Parliament passed the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, a bipartisan private memberâs bill that criminalizes same-sex relationships and LGBTQ+ advocacy in Ghana. If signed into law by the President, it will impose prison sentences ranging from three to five years for individuals engaged in or promoting LGBTQ+ activities.
The bill also includes penalties for organizations and individuals who provide funding or support for LGBTQ+ advocacy.
Richard Sky and Dr. Amanda Odoi separately challenged the bill in the Supreme Court, arguing that it failed to comply with Article 108 of the 1992 Constitution and Act 921. They contended that, as a private memberâs bill, it could impose financial obligations on the state by requiring the incarceration of convicted individuals at the stateâs expense.
On December 18, 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the suits, ruling that they had failed to properly invoke the courtâs jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the Constitution. The judges also held that, since the bill had not yet become law, the challenge was premature.
It was this decision that Sky sought to have reviewedâbefore ultimately withdrawing his application.
