The Supreme Court yesterday directed parties involved in the challenge of the constitutionality of the Human and Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, commonly referred to as the anti-LGBTQ+ Bill, to re-file fresh documents.
The apex court consequently adjourned the cases indefinitely. The cases, which were called separately, were filed by broadcaster and lawyer, Richard Sky, and a human rights activist, Dr Amanda Odoi.
The business of the day was to deal with fundamental issues standing in the way of the substantive suits.
Motions
When Mr Sky’s case was called yesterday, his legal team, led by Paa Kwesi Abaidoo — who had originally filed an application for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the transmission of the anti-LGBTQ+ Bill to the President for consideration and subsequent assent pending the final determination of the substantive case — notified the court of two motions.
The first motion sought leave of the apex court to amend the reliefs sought in the interlocutory injunction, while the second sought leave to file supplementary affidavits in support of the injunction.
Objection
Counsel for the Speaker of Parliament, Thaddeus Sory, raised a preliminary legal objection to the first motion on grounds that his affidavit in opposition to the interlocutory application objected to the relief the plaintiff was seeking leave to amend.
He added that allowing the plaintiff to amend it would defeat his objection, which he had raised earlier in his affidavit in opposition to the interlocutory application. “He (Mr Sky) cannot avoid the consequences of that objection by filing a motion for leave to amend those reliefs and render my objection redundant,” he said.
The Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Godfred Yeboah Dame, opposed the objection, stating that the rules of the court did not allow for such a process to be undertaken without the permission of the court.
Mr Dame further questioned the grounds for the objection as the new reliefs in his view were not any different in material fact except for a grammatical correction. “I do not see any error in procedure adopted by counsel for Mr Sky in seeking leave to amend a relief.
A close look at the relief shows no material difference from the reliefs originally sought,” he argued.
Source: Graphic Online
