The Supreme Court has firmly reiterated that foreign laws and cultural values, including the legalization of homosexuality in some countries, have no place in Ghana’s legal system.
In its ruling upholding the criminalization of unnatural carnal knowledge, the apex court emphasized that Ghana’s laws are deeply rooted in the nation’s values, which should not be compromised by external influence or judicial decisions from other jurisdictions.
The court declared that Section 104(1)(b) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), which criminalizes unnatural carnal knowledge, remains constitutional and in line with the 1992 Constitution.
In its judgment, the court underscored that Ghana is under no obligation to adopt foreign laws that conflict with its legal principles and cultural ethos.
“The law’s utility thus becomes waste, if it is just the transportation of alien cultural values and ideas which have no foundation at all with the peculiar social factors in our legal system,” the court asserted.
The ruling reaffirms that any form of sexual intercourse that does not involve “penetration with a penis into a woman’s vagina” remains a crime under Section 104 of Act 29, including acts of sodomy and bestiality.
The seven-member panel, led by Justice Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu, unanimously dismissed a suit filed by Dr. Prince Obiri-Korang, who sought to challenge the constitutionality of the law on the grounds that it violated rights to privacy and liberty. However, the court ruled that his arguments, largely based on foreign laws, could not be applied in Ghana.
Justice Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi, concurring with the decision, noted that peer pressure from other countries should not dictate Ghana’s stance on homosexuality. He argued that the 1992 Constitution upholds family and cultural values, which are at odds with practices such as homosexuality.
“Whilst the constitutions and laws of other nations may have expressly legalized homosexuality… Ghana as a nation, and for that matter this Court, cannot by ‘peer pressure’ be cajoled into adopting a similar stance,” Justice Kulendi emphasized.
Justice Kulendi also highlighted the constitutional mandate to protect the family as the fundamental unit of society, pointing out that legalizing homosexuality would threaten traditional modes of family creation and societal stability. He argued that the Constitution’s recognition of family values renders the practice of homosexuality unconstitutional.
The court further rejected the plaintiff’s argument regarding the violation of privacy rights, asserting that the right to privacy is not absolute and can be limited by concerns for public safety, morality, and the well-being of the country.
“The right to privacy… is subject to certain restrictions such as public safety, economic well-being of the country, and public morality,” the court stated.
With this ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed Ghana’s commitment to preserving its legal and cultural identity while rejecting external pressures to alter its stance on unnatural carnal knowledge.