There is nothing urgent about the anti-lgbtqi bill – Attorney-General

Attorney-General Godfred Dame says that there is nothing urgent about the anti-LGBTQI bill.

He is surprised at the urgency with which the sponsors of the bill are attaching to it.

Mr Dame further stated that the sponsoring of the anti-gay bill was politically motivated.

Speaking exclusively with TV3’s Joseph Ackah-Blay on Thursday, March 21, Mr Dame said “I think that it is either the speaker was misinformed or misled by those who were mooting the action.”

“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 titi for tat is being done by some people,” he said.

Piro to this exclusive interview, Mr Dame told Mr Bagbin that there was no inhibition in the process of Parliament to approve the ministerial nominees of President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo.

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.”

Below is the A-G’s full statement…

RE: DECISION TO HALT THE APPROVAL OF MINISTERIAL NOMINESS PRESENTED TO PARLIAMENT OF SUIT NO. J1/ 12/ 24 (ROCKSON-NELSON DAFEAMEKPOR VRS. 1. SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT 2. ATTORNEY-GENERAL)

Respectfully, I am aware of a statement made by your esteemed self in Parliament on 20 March, 2024, in which you communicated the inability of the House to “continue to consider the nominations of His Excellency the President in view of the pendency of what you stated as “an injunction motion on notice seeking to restrain the Speaker from proceeding with the vetting and approval filed in the suit referred to above.

In furtherance of my role under article 88 of the Constitution and bearing constitutional responsibility for the conduct and defence of all civil proceedings against the State (including Parliament), I am constrained to draw your attention to some observations made from a body of the suit in question and the results of a formal search conducted at the Registry of the Supreme Court today, 21, March, 2024.

2. 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. Please find attached the results of a search conducted at the Registry of the Supreme Court.
3. Whilst it is true that a relief stated on the writ filed on 18 March, 2024 referred to above, purports to be an ‘an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Speaker of Parliament from proceeding with the writing and approval of the names of the persons submitted by His Excellency the President to Parliament…”. it goes without saying that same is not an application for interlocutory injunction. Every application for interlocutory relief in any of the Superior Court, as is trite, must be by a motion specifically filed and praying for the desired relief. The mere statement on a writ of summons of a prayer for interlocutory relief is inconsequential and of no effect. It does not constitute a pending motion for such a relief, and no one is required to take notice of same.
4. In any event, it is pertinent to indicate that the substance of Mr. Dafeamekpor’s suit is a challenge on the power of the President to relieve Ministers serving in his government of their portfolios and reassign them to different Ministries. It has no bearing on the approval of persons newly nominated by the President as Ministers and Deputy Ministers and duly presented to Parliament for approval in accordance with articles 78(1) and 79(1) of the Constitution.
5. In light of the foregoing, Parliament, in my respectful view, has no inhibition in proceeding with the approval processes for the ministerial and deputy ministerial nominees. There is no risk of a prejudice to the authority of the Supreme Court in determining the substance and essence of the suit filed by Mr. Rockson-Nelson Etse Dafeamekpor should Parliament continue the approval processes for the nominees. I respectfully bring the matters set out above to your attention and advise that Parliament is not inhibited from proceeding with the approval processes for the ministerial and deputy ministerial nominees duly presented by the President in accordance with articles 78(1) and 79(1) of the Constitution.
6. I take this opportunity to renew to you, Right Honourable, the assurances of my highest consideration. Signed – Godfred Yeboah Dame

The post There is nothing urgent about the anti-lgbtqi bill – Attorney-General first appeared on 3News.

Read Full Story