The Attorney-General Godfred Dame believes that the sponsoring of the anti-gay bill was politically motivated.
It was his view that there was really no need to handle this bill urgently.
“Every aspect of this bill is politically motivated. Otherwise, there is really no urgency. I remember mooting the contract management bill, a bill that had the potential to save the state millions of Cedis in judgment debt, passed by parliament in July 2023, it was only presented to the president for his assent about three weeks ago. Every step in this matter is politically motivated,” he told TV3’s Joseph Ackah-Blay in an exclusive interview on Thursday, March 21.
Mr Dame further told the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin that this is not the time to engage in tit for tat.
In his view, this is the time to look at things within the legal framework.
“This is a time we have to look at things legally, through the appropriate lenses and with all respect to stop the unnecessary tit for tat that is being done by some people,” he said.
Mr Dame refuted claims that he has received an interlocutory injunction in the case brought forth by Member of Parliament for South Dayi, Rockson-Nelson Etse K. Dafeamekpor.
Mr Dame clarified that he has not been served with any legal documents pertaining to such court proceedings.
Parliament on Wednesday, March 20 halted the vetting process for the nomination of Ministers and Deputy Ministers of State by President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo following an interlocutory injunction filed at the Supreme Court by MP Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor.
In his closing remarks to the House before adjourning on Wednesday, Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin cited the lawsuit as the reason for the suspension of the vetting process, as it rendered Parliament unable to proceed with the nominations.
“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.”
However, in a letter addressed to the Speaker on Thursday, March 21, Mr. Dame disputed Bagbin’s assertion, stating that it was based on inaccuracies as no injunction had been filed.
“The plaintiff has not filed an application for interlocutory injunction seeking to restrain the Speaker from proceeding with the vetting and approval of the names of the persons submitted by His Excellency the President…”, or indeed, any other interlocutory relief.
“Thus, there is nothing before the Supreme Court which may constitute a restraint or fetter on Parliament from proceeding with the approval of ministerial and deputy ministerial nominees presented to Parliament by the President in accordance with articles 78(1) and 79(1) of the Constitution.”
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”.