One of the 18 academicians, lawyers and CSOs leaders who have opposed the passage of the anti-LGBTQI+ bill, lawyer Akoto Ampaw, has suggested that there are more serious threats to the values and culture of Ghanaians than LGBTQI+.
Appearing on behalf of the group before the Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee of parliament at their public hearing, he said the bill was unconstitutional.
He said adultery and teenage pregnancy were far superior threats to Ghanaians than LGBTQI+.
Mr. Akoto Ampaw stated that the bill is not processed constitutionally, and the Speaker of Parliament has violated article 103 of the constitution for accepting the bill in the first place.
He further explained the bill violates the fundamental human rights provision of the constitution.
He elaborated that after the bill is passed into law individuals suspected to be LGBTQIU+ could be stigmatized and attacked, a situation that is against their right as Ghanaians.
Mr. Akoto Ampaw noted that per article 108 of the 1992 Constitution, “Parliament shall not proceed on a bill which will impose costs or charges on the Consolidated Fund unless it is presented by, or on behalf of the President.”
He noted that “the speaker is not above the Constitution, he is subject to the mandatory provisions of the Constitution and it is our view that the Speaker violated article 108 of the Constitution when he allowed such a bill that clearly imposes a charge on the consolidated funds and public funds to be laid before Parliament.”
According to him, “Article 108 states that if in the opinion of the person presiding, the bill does not impose a charge on the consolidated fund or other public funds.
However, as we all know, any discretionary power that is granted any person exercising a public function like the Speaker of Parliament under Article 296 of the Constitution, must be exercised in a reasonable, not arbitrary manner and without prejudice.”
And where it is clear that the Speaker of Parliament, as in this case, has exercised his discretion unreasonably by concluding that the bill does not impose a charge on the public fund when it is obvious and palpable that the bill imposes a charge on the public fund, that decision of the Speaker is by Article 296 of the Constitution unconstitutional,” he added.
<<Print>>