DR. AMANDA ODOI VS THE SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT & ANOR

DARKO ASARE JSC (READ BY SACKEY TORKORNOO CJ):

By this application, the Plaintiff/Applicant prays for an order of interlocutory injunction to restrain the 1st Defendant/Respondent, the Clerk of Parliament and their respective agents, servants and assigns from forwarding the Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill which was passed by Parliament on Wednesday February 28th, 2024 as the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2024 (“the Bill”) to the President for his assent, pending the final determination of this present suit.

This application rests on a writ which the Applicant caused to be issued against the Respondents invoking the original jurisdiction of this Court for a number of reliefs summed up at paragraph 22 of Applicant’s Statement of Case In Support of An Application For The Interlocutory Injunction filed on the 7th of March 2024. Paragraph 22 reads as follows:-

22. On 1st June 2023, the Applicant caused a Writ of Summons, suit no. J1/13/2023 (“the Suit”) to be issued against the Respondent seeking orders of this Honourable Court to compel the 1st Respondent to comply with the constitutional requirements in Article 108”

To the extent relevant for our decision, we shall distill the background facts into a brief narrative, focusing on the essential elements that will inform our consideration and resolution of the issues raised in this application.

The gravamen of the application herein is set out in Applicant’s supporting affidavit filed on the 7th of March 2024. Briefly stated, the Applicant’s case is that prior to the introduction of the Private Member’s Bill known as the Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill into Parliament, the 1st Respondent contrary to the provisions of Article 108 of the 1992 Constitution, failed to provide an opinion on whether the Bill had the likely effect of imposing a charge on the Consolidated Fund or other public funds of Ghana. According to the Applicant, this constitutional aberration on the part of the 1st Respondent tainted the Bill with grave illegality, and rendered it incapable of being transmitted to the President for his assent. Applicant further averred that even though an initial similar application for an injunction had failed on the grounds that the Applicant had failed to make a prima facie case to restrain the work of Parliament in its “uncompleted form”, this present application related to a completed Bill. Contending that the