Using dildos, vibrators to achieve sexual pleasure is unlawful – Supreme Court rules

Ghana’s Supreme Court has in a unanimous decision ruled that using dildos and vibrators to achieve sexual pleasure is unlawful.

A seven-member panel of the apex court unanimously dismissed a suit challenging the constitutionality of Section 104 (1) (b) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29).

This section criminalizes sexual intercourse in an unnatural manner, even between consenting adults, including the use of sex toys.

In its decision, the Supreme Court on Wednesday, July 24, 2024, upheld that the existing law, which makes it unlawful for both heterosexuals and homosexuals to engage in anal sex, does not breach the 1992 Constitution.

The suit was initiated by Dr. Prince Obiri-Korang, a law lecturer at the University of Ghana.

He argued that Section 104 (1) (b) of Act 29 violated Article 14 (1) of the 1992 Constitution by depriving individuals of the liberty to choose their intimate sexual partners and engage in sexual conduct without state interference. Section 104 (1) (b) of Act 29 states that any person aged 16 years and above who has unnatural carnal knowledge with another person, even with consent, commits a misdemeanour punishable by up to three years in prison.

Dr. Obiri-Korang sought a declaration from the Supreme Court that Section 104 (1) (b) of Act 29 was unconstitutional.

Dr. Obiri-Korang also contended that the law infringed on adults’ privacy rights under Article 18 (2) and discriminated based on sexual orientation, violating Article 17 (2).

However, the court presided over by Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, ruled that the suit had no merit and dismissed it.

“There is no merit in the action. In the circumstances, the whole action fails and same is dismissed,” the court held.

Other members of the panel included Justices Avril Lovelace Johnson, Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu, Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi, Ernest Gaewu, Yaw Darko Asare, and Richard Adjei-Frimpong.

Section 104 of Act 29 is divided into three parts. Section 104 (1) (a) criminalizes unnatural carnal knowledge with a person below 16 years, a first-degree felony punishable by five to 25 years in prison.

Section 104 (1) (b) makes it a misdemeanour for consenting adults to engage in unnatural carnal knowledge, the specific provision challenged by Dr Obiri-Korang. Section 104 (1) (c) criminalizes sexual intercourse with an animal.

Unnatural carnal knowledge, as defined by Section 104 (2) of Act 29, refers to “sexual intercourse with a person in an unnatural manner or with an animal.”

In his suit, Dr. Obiri-Korang argued that the law’s wording could affect not only homosexuals but also females using dildos and vibrators for self-pleasure.

“The term unnatural carnal knowledge may include penetration per anum, the penetration of the female genitalia or male/female rectum with object, fellatio, and cunnilingus, all of which are not exclusive to homosexuals.”

Dr. Obiri-Korang further argued that the government’s justification for the law to protect morality was flawed, emphasizing the need to differentiate between public and private morality.

The Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, defended the constitutionality of Section 104 (1) (b) of Act 29, arguing that it is non-discriminatory and does not authorize privacy invasions.