The Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the lawyers representing the second defendant and respondent, the Speaker of Parliament, in the lawsuit filed by Richard Dela Sky against the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, also known as the Anti-LGBTQ Bill.
During proceedings on Wednesday, May 8, lawyers representing the plaintiff, Richard Sky, sought to amend one of the reliefs after noticing an omission on the motion paper for the interlocutory injunction.
However, lawyers for the Speaker of Parliament, led by Thaddeus Sory, raised a preliminary objection to the application. They argued that allowing Richard Sky to amend the reliefs would undermine the objections they had raised about the same reliefs.
Thaddeus Sory contended that once an objection has been raised to a relief in a motion paper, the applicant has no right to amend the relief, as it would nullify their objections.
In response, Richard Sky’s lawyers cited provisions of the High Court rules C. I 47, asserting their right to seek leave from the court to amend any proceedings before it.
Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame, present in court, questioned the grounds for the objection by the second defendant. He argued that the new reliefs were not materially different from the old ones, except for grammatical corrections.
The court dismissed the objection as unnecessary and permitted Richard Sky to amend the reliefs on the motion paper.
Presiding over the case, Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo directed Richard Sky to file a new motion by May 17. The defendants, the Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney General, were given 7 days after that to file their responses.
Meanwhile, the case has been adjourned sine die.