SKY VRS PARLIAMENT OF GHANA (J1/09/2024) [2024] GHASC 66 (18 December 2024)

SKY VRS PARLIAMENT OF GHANA (J1/09/2024) [2024] GHASC 66 (18 December 2024)

The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional challenge to a Bill that has not yet been assented to by the President and thus is not an 'enactment' within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Constitution. The legislative process must be completed before judicial review can be exercised. The plaintiff’s action is therefore premature and must be dismissed.

Citation
SKY VRS PARLIAMENT OF GHANA (J1/09/2024) [2024] GHASC 66 (18 December 2024)
Parties
Plaintiff: Richard Sky; 1st Defendant: Parliament of Ghana; 2nd Defendant: Attorney General
Court
ghasc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
18 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Writ / Final Judgment
Outcome
Dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Separation of Powers, Human Rights, Legislative Procedure, Standing, Quorum, Financial Impact of Legislation
Source Language
eng
Constitutional Law Legislative Process Judicial Review Separation of Powers Human Rights Legislative Procedure Standing Quorum +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Sky

Plaintiff

Parliament of Ghana

1st Defendant

Attorney General

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Writ / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction is properly invoked to challenge the constitutionality of a Bill not yet assented to by the President
  2. 2 Whether the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2024 violates fundamental human rights under the Constitution
  3. 3 Whether Parliament complied with Article 108 regarding financial implications of the Bill

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional challenge to a Bill that has not yet been assented to by the President and thus is not an 'enactment' within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Constitution. The legislative process must be completed before judicial review can be exercised. The plaintiff’s action is therefore premature and must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Dismissed