Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill: Richard Sky’s case adjourned

Supreme Court has directed Richard Dela Sky to file a new motion for an order for an interlocutory injunction on the transmission of the anti-LGBTQ+ bill to the President for consideration and subsequent assent by the President pending the final determination of the matter.

This follows two applications filed by his lawyers to amend the reliefs he is seeking in the interlocutory injunction and to file supplementary affidavits.

The lawyer of Richard Dela Sky by the first application sought to amend the reliefs as they observed an omission on the motion paper for the interlocutory injunction.

Lawyers for the Speaker of Parliament led by Thaddeus Sory, however, raised a preliminary objection to the application. According to Thaddeus Sory, the attempt by Richard Sky to amend the reliefs will be overreaching objections they have raised in relation to the same reliefs.

He argued that there is a case precedent to support his point that, when an objection has been raised to reliefs contained in a motion paper, an applicant has no right to amend the relief as it will render his objections redundant.

Lawyers of Richard Sky relying on provisions of the High Court rules C. I 47 noted that rules grant them a right to seek leave of the court to amend any proceedings before the court.

Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame who opposed the objection stated that if any processes before the court are not appropriate it is an affidavit filed without leave of the speaker of parliament.

It emerged in court that lawyers of the Speaker filed an affidavit on March 15 this year in opposition to the application, withdrew that affidavit on April 2 and filed a fresh Affidavit on April 2 without the leave of the court.

Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame contended that the rules of the court do not allow for such a process to be undertaken without the permission of the court.

Godfred Yeboah Dame further questioned the grounds for the objection as the new reliefs in his view are not any different in material fact compared to the old one except for corrections to the grammatical expression.

The court dismissed the objection as being unnecessary and permitted Richard Sky to amend the reliefs on the motion paper.

His lawyers also requested permission from the court to file a supplementary affidavit to their affidavit in support of the application for interlocutory injunction.

Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame, however, opposed this application on grounds that the matters deposed to are not matters of facts but rather points of law that the rules of the court do not support.

Lawyers for the second defendant and respondent, the speaker of parliament suggested that the court should rather direct for the applicant to file a fresh motion that includes the amended reliefs and the supplementary affidavit.

The Supreme Court presided over by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo agreed with the suggestion and asked for Richard Sky to file a new motion by May 17. The defendants, thus the speaker of parliament and the Attorney General are also given 7 days after that to file their responses.

The case has been adjourned sine die.
—citinewsroom