LGBTQ+Bill case: Dismiss Dafeamakpor’s action against Bagbin, Akufo-Addo as incompetent – AG to Court
The Attorney General (AG) has urged the High Court in Accra to dismiss an application for Mandamus seeking to compel the Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin and the President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo to act on LGBTQ+ bill within 7 days.
According to the AG, the Applicant’s application for Mandamus is incompetent and should be dismissed.
In an affidavit in response filed on Wednesday, April 17, 2024 to Rockson-Nelson Dafeamakpor’s application for mandamus, the AGs office argued that, “due to the two cases pending before the Supreme Court for determination, the 1st Respondent and the President are unable to proceed.
The AG also argued that, if the High Court grants the present application, “the High Court would be overreaching the Supreme Court which is already seized of the two cases referred to.”
“That the High Court would be prejudicing the ability of the Supreme Court to effectively adjudicate the merits of the two cases which it is seized of, if it proceeds to determine the instant suit,” the AG submitted.
Earlier on Thursday, April 18, the High Court presided over by Justice Ellen Lordina Serwaa Mireku adjourned the case to April 29 for the Applicant to reply to the AG’s affidavit in response.
Below is the AGs affidavit in answer
I Tricia Quartey, of the Office of the Attorney General and Ministry of Justice in the Greater Accra Region of the Republic of Ghana, make oath and say as follows:
1. That I am a Principal State Attorney and the deponent herein.
2. That I have the consent of the Attorney-General to swear to this affidavit the facts of which have come to my knowledge in the course of my work as a State Attorney.
3. That at the hearing of the application, Counsel for the 2nd Defendant/Respondent shall seek leave of this honourable court to refer to all processes filed in this matter as if same has been incorporated herein and sworn to on oath.
4. That the 2nd Respondent admits paragraphs ,1 ,2 ,3 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 1, 12, and 13 of the applicant’s affidavit in support.
5. That the applicant is put to strict proof of the averments contained in paragraph 14 of the applicant’s affidavit in support.
6. That the 2nd Respondent admits paragraphs 15, 16, and 17 of the applicant’s affidavit in support.
7. That citizens of the Republic have in the two separate suits invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court claiming reliefs which affect the substance and effect of the action to be fare court attached here with and marked as Exhibits AG1 and AG2 copies of the said suits.
8. That consequent upon the commencement of the said actions, the plaintiffs in the two suits have filed applications for interlocutory injunctions seeking to restrain the 1st Respondent and the President.
9. That in answer to paragraph 18 of the applicant’s affidavit in support, the 2nd Respondent avers that it received two applications for injunction filed before the Supreme Court, namely, Richard Sky vs The Parliament of Ghana and the Attorney-General (Suit No: JI/9/2024), and Dr. Amanda Odoivs The Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney-General (Suit No: J/13/2023): Exhibited and attached as Exhibits AGI and AG2 respectively.
10. That the 2nd respondent says further that the two case seek to injunction the 1st Respondent and the President from proceeding with the Bill.
11. That the 2nd Respondent admits paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 of the applicant’s affidavit in support.
12. That in response to paragraph 2 of the applicant’s affidavit in support, the 27 respondent states that the issues raised therein are before the Supreme Court for determination.
13. That the 2nd Respondent admits paragraphs 23 and 24 of the applicant’s Affidavit in Support.
14. That the 2nd Respondent admits paragraph 25 of the affidavit in support and in further answer repeats paragraph 7 of this affidavit to wit, that due to the two cases pending before the Supreme Court for determination, the 1st Respondent and the President are unable to proceed.
15. That the 2nd Respondent admits paragraph 26 of the applicant’s affidavit in support.
16. That in response to paragraph 27 of the applicant’s affidavit in support, the 2nd Respondent says that the matter is before the Supreme Court and further avers that if the High Court grants this present application, the High Court would be overreaching the Supreme Court which is already seized of the two cases referred to.
17. That the High Court would be prejudicing the ability of the Supreme Court to effectively adjudicate the merits of the two cases which it is seized of, if it proceeds to determine the instant suit.
18. That the 2nd Respondent denies paragraphs 30, 31, and 32 of the applicant’s affidavit in support and further avers that the applicant has not proved that he ok has a legal right to enforce the duties he is claiming against the Is Respondent and the President.
19. That in further answer, the 2d Respondent says that the applicant has not proved that he has requested the performance of any duty which has been refused by the 1st Respondent or the President.
20. That the applicant’s application for Mandamus is incompetent and should be dismissed.
