The Supreme Court has directed Broadcast Journalist, Richard Dela Sky, who is challenging the constitutionality of the passage of the anti-LGBTQ+ bill, to file a new motion for an order of interlocutory injunction.
A televised court hearing was held to address the lawsuits filed by Dr Amanda Odoi and Richard Dela Sky challenging the passage of the LGBTQ+ Bill by Ghana's Parliament.
The Supreme Court has directed Broadcast Journalist, Richard Dela Sky, who is challenging the constitutionality of the passage of the anti-LGBTQ+ bill, to file a new motion for an order of interlocutory injunction.
This directive comes as part of the legal process to prevent the bill from being transmitted to the President for consideration and possible assent, pending the outcome of the legal challenge.
- Advertisement -The court's decision followed a complex hearing in which Richard Dela Sky's legal team filed two separate applications: one to amend the reliefs in the original motion and another to submit supplementary affidavits. These applications came after his lawyers identified an omission in the original motion paper, necessitating an amendment to their reliefs.
Thaddeus Sory, representing the Speaker of Parliament, objected to the amendments, arguing that allowing such changes would undermine objections already raised. Sory cited a legal precedent supporting his argument, indicating that once objections have been raised against a motion, the applicant cannot amend the reliefs without rendering those objections redundant.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
However, the Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, disagreed with Sory's objection, highlighting that if any process lacked proper procedure, it was the affidavit the Speaker of Parliament's lawyers filed. Dame noted that the Speaker's team had withdrawn an affidavit submitted on March 15 and refiled it on April 2 without the court's permission, contrary to legal rules.
Dame also contended that the amendments to the reliefs proposed by Richard Dela Sky's lawyers did not materially alter the original motion but merely corrected grammatical errors.
The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo, sided with the Attorney General and dismissed the objection, allowing the amendments to the motion. The court also granted Sky's legal team permission to file a supplementary affidavit, overruling opposition from the Attorney General, who argued that the affidavit contained points of law rather than facts.
To streamline the process, the court suggested a new motion, encompassing the amended reliefs and the supplementary affidavit, should be filed. The court directed Richard Dela Sky's lawyers to file this new motion by May 17, with the Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney General given seven days to respond.
The case has been adjourned sine die, with further developments pending the filing and response to the new motion.
