1 month ago
13 ARTICLE AD
The Supreme Court (SC) will today, hear an application filed by Parliament in the anti-LGBTQ+ case.
Parliament filed the application on October 1 asking the apex court to give permission for it 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 October 7, Justice Ellen Ofei Ayeh, a registrar of the Supreme Court told journalists that the Supreme Court is ready to receive all processes that need 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 said.
In a statement issued and copied the Ghanaian Times three weeks ago, the Judicial Service said the Supreme Court (SC) can 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, said it was not the fault of the SC that the hearing of the substantive matter had been delayed.
The explanation comes on the back of a planned demonstration by Mr Samuel George Nartey, the Member of Parliament for Ningo Prampram, and one of the sponsors of the Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill, today, September 17.
Mr Nartey had recently explained on TV3 that he and others would march against the Chief Justice on September 17, 2024.
According to the legislator, the decision of the SC on July 17, 2024 to defer ruling on the interlocutory injunction to restrain Parliament from transmitting the Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill to the President for assent until the substantive case is heard and determined, is a ‘deliberate and malicious’ attempt by the Chief Justice to delay the passage of the Bill into law, necessitating the protest march to demand a timetable for the hearing of the case.
The Judicial Service said 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 said: … ‘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.”
The statement said that in any constitutional action in the Supreme Court, the plaintiff is required to file a statement of case.
Additionally, it stated that the plaintiff ’s statement of case should be defended by the defendant in a statement of case within fourteen days of receiving the plaintiff ’s statement of case pursuant to (Rule 48 of the Supreme Court Rules 1996, CI 16).
After the two statements of case have been filed, the parties have to file a joint or separate memorandum of issues stating the constitutional questions in dispute that the parties want the Supreme Court to give a decision on (Rule 50 of the Supreme Court Rules 1996, CI 16).
Moreover, it said the Richard Sky case was started with a writ filed on March 5, 2024 and that as at July 31, 2024, when the Supreme Court went on recess, neither Parliament, the first defendant nor the Attorney General, the second defendant had filed a defense to the plaintiff ’s action in the form of their statements of case.
The statement said the three parties could only file the memorandum of issues for the trial when the statements of case are in place.
Until then, it stress that the Supreme Court cannot hear the case.
BY MALIK SULLEMANA
