The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin has said President Akufo-Addo and the Judiciary have desecrated the 1992 constitution by their actions in relation to the anti-LBGTQI bill.
President Akufo-Addo has refused to assent to the Anti-LGBTQI bill which was passed by Parliament stating that his office will only act on the bill after a final determination in a case against the bill which is currently being heard by the Supreme Court.
It can be recalled that just after Parliament passed the Anti-LGBTQI bill, a private legal practitioner, Richard Dela Sky, filed a suit at the Supreme Court challenging the legality of the bill.
Due to this case, President Akufo-Addo refused to act on the bill despite petition for his swift act on the bill presented to his office.
Speaking to the media on Wednesday, November 6, Bagbin noted that the action by the President and the Judiciary are not in accordance with the stipulations of the 1992 constitution.
Bagbin explained that per the law the President cannot refuse to receive a bill by Parliament as the constitution mandates the President to receive the bill and raise concerns if he has any.
After which Parliament will reconsider the bill in consideration with the President’s concerns.
“There’s nowhere in the laws of Ghana where the President can refuse to receive a bill passed by Parliament. In fact, the drafters of the constitution have okay that they even took away veto power from the President. So, in Ghana, the President cannot veto a bill passed by Parliament.
“It’s clear in the constitution that the President will receive the bill passed by Parliament, if he has concerns, he will communicate to Parliament that I have concerns on this bill that you have passed within seven days.
“But he has 14 days to put across those concerns back to Parliament and Parliament would be called upon to reconsider the bill taking his inputs into considerations. That is what is in the constitution and the laws of Ghana,” Alban Bagbin stated.
He added: “So, if the President refuses to even receive the bill, what has he done to the constitution?”
Speaker Bagbin believes that this act by the President contravened the dictates of the law.
“In the constitution, the President is permitted to refer the bill to the Council of State for advice but he didn’t even do that. So, the term (sinned against the constitution) I even used is very mild,” Bagbin said.
Reacting to the Judiciary’s action on the bill, Speaker Bagbin says the Supreme Court should have gotten rid of the suit.
He explained that the bill had not fully become a law, hence the Court had no locus to determine or act on the matter.
“In the case of the Judiciary, a bill is a bill. It is not law. This is a draft that is being discussed, what is the Judiciary going to do? Be part of the law-making process? Tell us what to do in the bill?
“It is only when it’s passed and assented to by the President then it becomes law then the Judiciary can come in to interpret and enforce. There is nothing like that and this is something immediately, with super sonic speed, it should have been jettisoned and not entertained at all,” Bagbin noted.
The Speaker believes that this has set a bad precedence for any citizen to truncate the business of Parliament especially with the passing of a bill.
“Now what it means is that anytime there is a bill and we are working on it, anybody at all can just take it to the court and that would mean that Parliament would have to stop and wait until the final determination of what. What are they to determine?” Bagbin lamented.
https://editors.3news.com/news/anti-lgbtq-bill-supreme-court-orders-a-g-to-file-statements-of-case-in-7-days/
