Speaker of Parliament Alban Bgabin has said that the refusal of President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo to accept the remittal of the anti-gay bill falls outside the law.
He says the president’s action is by all accounts, not supported by the constitutional and statutory provisions that guide our legislative process.
“Honourable Members, several critical points emerge that underscore the importance of adhering to constitutional and legal frameworks within our democratic governance. Firstly, the President’s refusal to accept the transmission of the bill is, by all accounts, not supported by the constitutional and statutory provisions that guide our legislative process.
“The Constitution clearly delineates the steps to be followed once a bill has been passed by Parliament, mandating the transmission of the bill to the President for assent or rejection. Therefore, the refusal to even accept the bill for consideration falls outside the legal bounds established by our constitutional framework. It is incumbent upon the President to accept the bill and take the necessary action within the prescribed constitutional limits, whether that action is assent, refusal, or referral to the Council of State for advice.
“It is instructive to note that the Executive, has in the past proceeded with its actions, although, there has been pending before the court, injunction application against the State. Secondly, there must be a steadfast rejection of any attempts to unduly fetter or hinder the work of Parliament. The Parliament of Ghana operates as a crucial part of our democracy, embodying the will and voice of the people. Any efforts to obstruct its work disrespects this fundamental institution and threatens the principles of governance by consent and representation.
“Thirdly, it is imperative to remain vigilant against setting dangerous precedents that could potentially undermine the foundation of our democracy. The rejection of a bill’s transmission without constitutional basis introduces a precarious deviation from established democratic practices and norms. Such actions, if left unchallenged, may embolden future attempts to circumvent the legislative process, thereby weakening the integrity and efficacy of our democratic institutions,” said this on the floor of Parliament on Wednesday, March 20 while responding to the letter written to the House by the President’s Secretary Nana Bediatuo Asante asking the Clerk of parliament not to remit the bill to the president.
He added “In alignment with our constitutional mandates and the principles of good governance, it is essential for the President to adhere to the lawful course of action by accepting the transmission of the bill. Upon receipt, the President has the constitutionally provided options to assent to the bill, refuse it, or seek further consultation, as deemed necessary. As we move forward, it is the collective responsibility of all branches of government, and indeed all citizens, to uphold the constitution and ensure that our democratic practices are not only preserved but strengthened.
“The current impasse presents an opportunity for reflection and reaffirmation of our commitment to the principles of democracy, rule of law, and the unequivocal respect for the legislative process that forms the bedrock of our nation’s governance. I reiterate that the refusal to even accept the bill for consideration falls outside the legal bounds established by our constitutional framework. It is incumbent upon the President to accept the bill and take the necessary action within the prescribed constitutional limits, whether that action is assent, refusal, or referral to the Council of State for advice.
“Article 106(7) says ‘Where a bill passed by Parliament is presented to the President for assent, he shall signify within seven days after the presentation, to the Speaker that he assets to the bill or that he refuses to assent to bill, unless the bill has been referred by the President to the Council of State under article 90 of this Constitution’. The Parliament of Ghana will comply with the existing legal framework and reject the attempts by the Executive Secretary of the President, through his contemptuous letter, to instruct the Clerk to Parliament, an Officer of Parliament whose position is recognizably under the Constitution. We shall not cease and desist!
“Be that as it may, Hon Members, I also bring to your attention, the receipt of a process from the Courts titled Rockson-Nelson Etse K. Dafeamekpor vrs. The Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney -General ( Suit no. J1/12/2024) which process was served on the 19th of March 2024 and an injunction motion on notice seeking to restrain the Speaker from proceeding with the vetting and approval of the names of the persons submitted by His Excellency the President until the provisions of the constitution are satisfied.
“Hon. Members in the light of this process, the House is unable to continue to consider the nominations of His Excellency the President in the “spirit of upholding the rule of law “ until after the determination of the application for interlocutory injunction by the Supreme Court,” he said.
Parliament unanimously passed the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill 2024 (also known as the anti-LGBTQ+ bill) on Wednesday, February 28.
The bill, if assented to, prescribes between three and five years imprisonment to persons found guilty of willful promotion, funding, and advocating for LGBTQ+ activities prohibited under the act.
Also, persons who publicly identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, an ally, or pansexual face between two months and three years of imprisonment.
The president later indicated his inability to the bill until after the Supreme Court had finished hearing the suit filed against the bill.
Later the Attorney -General in a letter dated March 18 addressed to Parliament and signed by the executive secretary to the President, Nana Bediatuo Asante, it was indicated that the Attorney-General wrote to the President stating, amongst other things, that “he has been duly served with both applications”.
He, therefore, advised the President “not to take any step in relation to the Bill until the matters raised by the suits are determined by the Supreme Court”.
The statement further requested that Parliament “cease and desist from transmitting the Bill to the President until the matters before the Supreme Court are resolved”.
“This Office is aware of two pending applications for an order of interlocutory injunction, both filed on 7th March 2024, in the Supreme Court in Dr. Amanda Odoi v. The Speaker of Parliament and The Attorney-General (J1/13/2023) and Richard Sky v. The Parliament of Ghana and The Attorney-General (11/9/2024), respectively, to restrain you and Parliament from transmitting the Bill to the President and, also, to restrain the President from signifying his assent to the Bill, pending the final determination of the matter,” the statement added.
Read the full letter below:
