The Supreme Court’s decision to defer its ruling on the request to restrain Parliament from transmitting the anti-LGBT bill filed by Dr. Amanda Odoi, until the substantive case is heard and determined, technically grants the application against transmitting the bill to the president, South Dayi Lawmaker Rockson Nelson Dafeamekor has said.
Mr Dafeamekopr explains that if the substance case travels for two years, it means the bill cannot be sent to the president for that period.
“It is sad that this is happening. This is happening at the highest of our judicial institution, SC. it will become a precedent that other lower courts may follow. It is not a good precedent,” he said on the Key Points on TV3 Saturday, July 20.
He argued that the Supreme Court’s decision to defer the ruling technically grants the application against transmitting the bill to the president.
“What then is the essence of the interlocutory application? The decision of the Supreme Court is a technical grant of the of granting the application. If the matter travels for two years parliament can’t remit the bill to the president. Parliament is deemed to be injuncted from transmitting the bill and it is a worrisome development. How do you tie parliament’s hands this way?” He said.
For his part, the Attorney-General Godfred Dame welcomed the decision by the Supreme Court to defer its ruling.
Dame says the apex court’s decision is not unusual because the justices referred to existing rule on injunctions to arrive at their decision.
“What happens is that the court indicated that we have to await the determination of the main action
The Case has been adjourned indefinitely.
Background
Richard Dela Sky is challenging the constitutionality of Parliament’s passage of the “Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill.”
Source: 3news.com
