Supreme Court Throws Out Richard Dela Sky's Legal Challenge To Anti-Gay Bill
The petitions were filed by broadcast journalist and lawyer Richard Dela Sky, as well as equality and inclusion advocate Amanda Odoi.
Freeman Koryekpor A 
In a landmark decision, a seven-member panel of the Supreme Court, chaired by Justice Lovelace Avril Johnson, has unanimously dismissed two high-profile petitions challenging the constitutionality of the controversial Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill.
The petitions were filed by broadcast journalist and lawyer Richard Dela Sky, as well as equality and inclusion advocate Amanda Odoi.
Both petitioners contended that the legislative process surrounding the bill failed to adhere to the quorum requirements outlined in Articles 102 and 104 of the Constitution.
They argued that Parliament’s inability to meet these requirements rendered the bill’s passage unconstitutional.
Richard Dela Sky sought a declaration from the court that the bill was null and void, while Amanda Odoi’s legal challenge was anchored on similar grounds, advocating for the invalidation of the bill’s legislative journey.
However, the Supreme Court dismissed both petitions, ruling that the bill was not yet subject to judicial review.
Justice Lovelace Johnson emphasized that a bill cannot be scrutinized for constitutionality until it has been enacted into law through presidential assent. “Until a bill receives presidential assent, it does not constitute an enforceable law and, therefore, cannot be challenged on constitutional grounds,” the court stated.
Justice Lovelace Avril Johnson
This ruling underscores a critical procedural principle: the judiciary can only intervene in legislative matters when they culminate in enforceable law.
A Contentious Bill
The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill has become one of the most polarizing pieces of legislation in Ghana’s recent history.
Proponents argue that it is a necessary safeguard against what they perceive as the encroachment of foreign ideologies that threaten Ghanaian traditions and moral values.
Advocates for the bill claim it reflects the collective will of Ghanaians, rooted in preserving family systems and cultural heritage.
On the other hand, critics have raised alarms about the potential repercussions of the bill. Human rights organizations, both local and international, argue that it undermines fundamental freedoms, including the rights to equality, association, and expression.
The ruling has significant implications for Ghana’s legislative and judicial processes. It reaffirms the separation of powers and delineates the boundaries of judicial intervention in legislative matters.
The court’s ruling effectively allows Parliament to transmit the bill to President Akufo-Addo to assent it into law following the latter’s earlier insistence not to sign the bill when it was sent to the presidency earlier this year, attributing it to Dela Sky and Amanda Odoi’s suit.
