CDD,HRC determines to fight LGBTQ+ bill out of parliament

Players in the human rights spaces have taken a swipe at Ghana's parliament following the passage of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill.

In response to the passage, the Center for Democratic Development-Ghana(CDD-Ghana and the Human Rights Coalition (HRC) in a joint press release have stated their resolve to fight the bill even outside of parliament.

In a press statement dated February 28, 2024, signed by the two organizations indicating their disappointment at the passage of the bill by Ghana's parliament. According to the duo, the passage of the bill is a slap on the face of human rights.

The passage which took a voice vote is described as a regrettable move. The release stressed, "The mass hysteria and fanaticism which proponents of the bill had mobilized in support of the bill and against anyone who dared to oppose it made level-headed debate about the bill practically impossible. Consequently, its passage by parliament became politically unstoppable, particularly in a tough election year.

Nevertheless, parliament's action, we remain resolute in our conviction that this bill is grossly ill-conceived, unconstitutional, and not in the best interest of the nation". Fears the passage of the bill will be a major setback for Ghana and its standing as a democratic society, the joint press statement further cautioned making it a law.

The joint statement however takes solace in the fact that the bill's passage will not be the end of the matter stressing, "We note importantly that the bill is still only a bill, not law.

Thus, the passage of the bill does not change the legal status quo".

Optimistic of the fact that parliament remains just a player in the law-making process, the statement noted that it does not have the final say in determining whether a bill becomes law or, passes the test of constitutionality upon passage.

The duo institutions remained determined in the fight against the bill out of parliament.

"Ghana's democracy is not a simple majoritarian democracy where the majority can impose their will or prejudices on a minority merely because they have numbers on their side. Ours is a constitutional democracy, in which even a majority, no matter how numerous or vociferous, is restricted as to what it can and cannot do in the name of law. Importantly, our constitution protects minorities against oppression at the hands of the majority. We believe that this bill passed by parliament is a clear instance of a majority or an influential coalition interests, acting through parliament to stigmatize and oppress a social minority", the statement bemoaned.

The duo institutions believe that the time has come for the Supreme Court to hear and finally determine a case before it.

The said case seeks to challenge the constitutionality of the bill in light of the restrictions placed on parliament under Article 108 of the constitution.

The said article enjoins parliament not to enact or pass a private member's bill that has the purpose or effect of imposing a charge on public funds.

"We believe, as the suit before the supreme court rightfully alleges, that this bill, which, among other things, imposes penal sanctions, including years of imprisonment for a violation, is precisely the kind of private member's bill that article 108 prohibits parliament from considering or acting upon", the statement disclosed.

Aside from the aforementioned defect of the bill, the joint press release pointed out that the bill not only infringes on the right to privacy, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of association, freedom of opinion, freedom of the media, and the right to equality under the law.

The bill, according to the statement prohibits even advocacy intended to change or repeal, a matter they find very unfortunate.

They could not understand why an interim injunction sought from the Supreme Court to prevent Parliament from acting upon the bill at the time the bill was making its way through Parliament was denied. "We remain confident that this bill will ultimately fail the constitutional test", it added.