• Local news

    Dame’s advice wasn’t about receipt of anti-LGBT+ Bill – Bagbin ‘schools’ Bediatuo

    Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin delivered a formal statement on March 20, 2024, responding to what has become a rift between the executive and legislative arms of government.

    Bagbin’s 62-point statement read out to lawmakers addressed comprehensively the contents of a letter signed by the Executive Secretary to the President asking the Clerk of Parliament to cease and desist from transmitting the anti-LGBT+ Bill to the Presidency.

    Nana Bediatuo Asante cited legal matters before the Supreme Court over the Bill’s constitutionality and the Attorney-General’s advice that the President withhold action on the Bill as the basis for his letter.

    Bagbin, however, strongly disagreed with the letter, which he said was contemptuous of Parliament.

    In a four-part statement, he addresses the legality of lawmaking and its nuances, and the issue of injunctions, especially those seeking to block Parliament from undertaking its core mandate.

    He dedicated points 13–15 to address the bit about the AG’s advice, which he said was about assent to the Bill or otherwise and not relative to Parliament’s transmission and/or receipt of the Bill by the President.

    What Bagbin said

    It further indicated that the Hon. Attorney General had on March 18 2024 informed the President that he had received the two applications and had advised the President not to take any step in relation to the Bill until matters raised by the suit are determined by the Supreme Court. As a result, the Presidency conveyed to the Clerk that it was unable to accept transmission of the Bill.
    My attention has also been drawn to the March 18, 2024, letter from the Hon. Attorney General being referred to by the Executive Secretary to the President, Nana Asante Bediatuo, above. In the said letter, I note that the Attorney-General used the phrase “…I will respectfully advise that a decision to assent to the Bill be made after the determination of the application for interlocutory injunction…” and not an advice to the President not to receive the Bill from Parliament.
    It is, therefore, interesting that in view of this clear and unambiguous advice from the Attorney-General to the President, the Presidency has taken this decision.


    Leave A Comment