Broadcast journalist and private Legal Practitioner Richard Dela Sky has discontinued his case against the anti-LGBTQ Bill at the Supreme Court.
The journalist filed a Judicial review following the dismissal of his suit against the bill on December 18.
Read also:
- BBC opioid exposé: FDA suspends Aveo Pharmaceuticals’ GMP certificate
- Black stool stolen from Sokoban Krofrom Palace
- NSS Scandal: NIB releases former deputy NSA director after days in detention
- Revocation of appointments solely based on financial reasons not partisanship – Mohammed Aziz
- Revocation of appointments: Gov’t finances not in good shape for more employment – Mohammed Aziz
But on Wednesday, February 26, his lawyers led by Paa Kwasi Abaidoo indicated to a 9-member panel of justices that they had filed a notice of discontinuation and hence would want to withdraw the case.
“We decided to let the sleeping dogs lie in this matter so we filed a notice of discontinuation,” Abaidoo noted.
The prosecution led by Chief State Attorney Sylvia Adusu did not oppose to the withdrawal.
“We were prepared to deal with it but if he’s discontinued we have no objection.”
The apex court then struck out the suit but not before chastising lawyers of the applicant for the failure of Dela Sky to show up in court.
“We take a strong objection to the absence of the applicant in court.
The applicant being a lawyer should have known that in spite of discontinuation he ought to be in court. Application struck out,” the panel concluded.
Speaking in an interview with TV3, Counsel for Richard Dela Sky explained that they decided to withdraw the suit because there’s currently no Anti-LGBTQ Bill before the President.
“one of our grounds for contesting this matter to this point was because it’s a private member motion. But the new President of the Republic did not hesitate to indicate that the Bill is reintroduced by the Executive. That totally makes makes our contention moot.”
On Wednesday, December 18, a 7 member panel of justices chaired by Avril Lovelace-Johnson, unanimously dismissed the suits of Richard Dela Sky and Human. Rights advocate Dr Amanda Odoi against the Proper Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill.
In Richard Sky’s case, he was contesting the legality of the bill, arguing that it violates several provisions of the 1992 Constitution, including Articles 33(5), 12(1) and (2), 15(1), 17(1) and (2), 18(2), and 21(1)(a)(b)(d), and (e).
Sky was seeking eight reliefs, one of which called for a declaration that the Speaker of Parliament breached Article 108(a)(ii) by permitting the passage of a bill that imposes a charge on the Consolidated Fund or other public funds of Ghana.
In dismissing Dr Amanda Odoi’s case, the apex court noted that the writ did not properly invoke the court’s jurisdiction.
Dr. Odoi had raised concerns over specific provisions within the bill. She was requesting a restraining order to prevent the Speaker of Parliament, the Attorney-General, and the Clerk of Parliament from forwarding the bill to President Akufo-Addo for assent.
Both lawsuits aimed to halt the implementation of the controversial bill, citing constitutional violations and potential legal overreach.
