Full judgment on LGBTQ+Bill: Your demands ought to have been refused by Public Officer before going to Court – Judge to Dafeamekpor

The High Court in  Accra has said for a Mandamus application to succeed in the manner in which Member of Parliament (MP) for South Dayi Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor has sought from the Court to compel the Speaker of Parliament and the President to act on the LGBTQ+ bill, he ought to have first made a demand.

According to the Court, that demand ought to have been made to a public officer but that public officer should have refused same.

This the Court said, paves the way for an order of Mandamus to be sought in Court.

However, that was not the situation in Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor’s action.

Justice Ellen Lordina Serwah Mireku made this known in her 14-paged judgment of Rockson-Nelson Dafeamakpor’s request to compel both the Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin and President Nana Akufo-Addo to act within seven days.

“This the Applicant deems as a demand and a refusal to act on their parts. I am of the considered view that these letters are not an act of outright refusal but a request to hold on or postpone the performance of the duty to a later time.

“Lastly, for the right of an Order of Mandamus to arise, the Applicant must have inter alia made a demand and same be refused and/or deemed to be refused by the Public Officer before a party could proceed to Court.

“It should however be noted that the current law in Ghana is that the demand and refusal rule is only applicable to statutes and not the Constitution.”

On Monday, April 29, 2024, the Court while dismissing the said, “It is my considered opinion that this Application for Mandamus is premature as the essence of the very Bill is being challenged at the Supreme Court and it would be peremptory to grant the application.”

“After careful consideration of the application, even though the Applicant satisfied the Court that there was a duty imposed on the Respondents, per the reasons given above, I am not minded exercising my discretion in the Applicant’s favor as I find that it is not appropriate at this time.

“Accordingly, the instant Application for Judicial Review in the nature of mandamus is refused,” the Court said.

Find attached the full judgment of the Court delivered on April 29, 2024, and released on May 2, 2024