Anti-LGBTQI Bill: We cannot restrain Parliament based on alleged omission-Supreme Court’s full reasoning
By DL News
Published
Updated
1 min read
The Supreme Court affirmed that it is unable to injunct the proceedings of Parliament on the basis of an alleged omission and that the matters raised by the applicant are matters to be resolved in the substantive suit.
The Supreme Court, on July 19, 2023, dismissed an injunction application filed by a researcher, Dr. Amanda Odoi, against the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin.
The court, in addition, struck out the applicant’s motion for committal for contempt filed against the Speaker for proceeding to consider the bill despite the pending injunction process.
The plaintiff had filed a suit challenging the Speaker's direction for the anti-LGBTQI bill to be considered despite ignoring a constitutional requirement and an opinion by the Attorney General.
She thus sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the Speaker and Parliament pending the determination of the substantive suit and, subsequently, an application to commit the Speaker for contempt.
However, in its full judgment, the nine-member panel presided over by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo (Mrs.) held that the applicant failed to make a prima facie case to convince the court to restrain the work of parliament in its uncompleted form.
Further, the court noted that the applicant failed to make a case to convince the court of irreparable damage to warrant the grant of the injunction to restrain uncompleted proceedings before parliament.
Additionally, the apex court established that the applicant failed to make a case to convince their Lordships of irreparable damage to warrant the grant of an injunction to restrain uncompleted proceedings before parliament.
Finally, the Supreme Court affirmed that it is unable to injunct the proceedings of Parliament on the basis of an alleged omission and that the matters raised by the applicant are matters to be resolved in the substantive suit.
Subsequently, the applicant withdrew her application to commit the Speaker for contempt, and the same was struck out by the court.
Other members of the panel were Pwamang (JSC), Baffoe-Bonnie (JSC), Mensa-Bonsu (JSC), Owusu (JSC), Ackaah-Yensu (JSC), Kulendi (JSC), Asiedu (JSC), and Koomson (JSC).
The applicant was represented by Dr. Ernest Ako, while Thaddeus Sory and Sylvia Adusu for the first and second respondents, respectively.
