
The Attorney-General has been granted an extra seven days to submit his statement of case regarding the lawsuits questioning the constitutionality of the Anti-LGBTQ bill.
During Thursday’s court session, the Attorney-General’s Office sought the extension, citing delays in obtaining a fiscal impact analysis that is expected to bolster their arguments.
JoyNews reporter Kweku Asante, who was in attendance, noted that senior state attorneys representing the Attorney General indicated they had expected the Speaker of Parliament and his legal team to file this fiscal impact analysis, as previously mentioned in an earlier hearing.
However, the absence of this document, they contended, had led to the delay in finalizing their submission.
Justice Yaw Darko Asare, who is presiding over the case, granted the request, allowing the Attorney-General an additional seven days to complete and submit the necessary documents.
The case of Dr. Amanda Odoi v. the Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney-General was filed on June 11, 2023, on the grounds that Parliament had violated Article 108 of the 1992 Constitution during the passage of the bill. Parliament submitted its defense in the form of a Statement of Case in March 2024.
Parliament was expected to file its defense within 14 days of receiving notice of the action; however, it submitted its defense on March 14, 2024.
The Attorney-General has yet to file a defense in the form of a Statement of Case. Furthermore, none of the three parties has submitted the issues to be resolved by the court, as required by the Supreme Court Rules, 1996, C.I. 16.
In Richard Sky’s case, which also contests the passage of the bill on the grounds that Parliament violated Article 108, neither Parliament nor the Attorney-General has filed a defense. Both parties have failed to fulfill the requirements to submit their Statement of Case and Memorandum of Issues, resulting in further delays.
Meanwhile, supporters of the Anti-LGBTQ bill demonstrated on Tuesday, October 8, calling on the Judiciary to expedite the hearing of cases contesting the bill’s constitutionality.