SC to hear application on anti-LGBTQ+ case Oct 15

 The Supreme Court (SC) will on October 15, 2024 hear an appli­cation filed by Parliament in the anti-LGBTQ+ case.

Parliament filed the application in Oc­tober asking the apex court to givepermis­sion forit to file its defence, even though they had exceeded the 14 days set by the Supreme Court rules.

At a press briefing in Accra on Monday, Justice Ellen Ofei Ayeh, a Registrar of the Supreme Court told journalists that the Supreme was ready to receive all processes that needed to be filed.

“The Supreme Court is ready to hear ev­ery matter where parties have complied with the rules of court directing the processes to be filed before a hearing is held,” Justice Ayeh stated.

In a statement issued and copied the Ghanaian Times three weeks ago, the Judicial Service said the Supreme Court (SC) could only conduct hearing on the pending cases when the parties in the matter file processes as stipulated under Rule 48 of the Supreme Court Rules 1996, CI 16, the Judicial Service of Ghana has clarified.

The Judicial Service also explained that it was not the fault of the SC that the hearing of the substantive matter had been delayed.

The Judicial Service noted that the SC sat as a panel of five Judges to hear the two applications on May 8, 2024, July 3, 2024 and July 17, 2024.

It further outlined that on July 17, 2024, the Supreme Court decided to defer the grant or refusal of injunction in the two applications. The reasons for arriving at this decision were stated in the ruling on the Amanda Odoi case, which was adopted in the Richard Sky case.

The court explained that: “we are con­vinced that the matters raised in this appli­cation can be better dealt with by obtaining all the facts through an early trial, than by considering the peculiar merits of the purposes of this application at this time. We also hold the view that an early trial of the action will serve the cause of justice, in view of the fact that it will render a clear view of the constitutional issues raised than a sus­tained dispute over interlocutory matters.”

 BY MALIK SULLEMANA