Emotions and personal sentiments have no role to play in the making of laws in Ghana, an academic and a member of the group of 18 professionals who are opposed to the anti-gay bill that is currently before Parliament, Prof Emerita Takyiwaa Manuh, has said.
She noted that the bill has been characterized by strong emotions and personal views especially from the church.
In her view, the church has taken an entrenched position on the bill because they believe they have the numbers to push their way through. However, she added, this issue is not about who has the numbers and who does not.
It is about what the 1992 constitution says regarding the making of laws, she stressed.
She further described the current bill as ‘obnoxious’ and ‘heinous’.
Prof Takyiwaa Manuh said while speaking on the Key Points show on TV3 Saturday November 13 regarding their memo and submissions before the committee that is handling the bill that, “We know that this has been a very emotive issue especially from the church who talk about their numbers and how many more memos they could have brought.
“But the issue is not about numbers, it is not that the law does not take into account the values and sentiments of the people. Yet knowing all of this the framers insisted that both in Article 1 (1) and (2) and Article 93(2) that lawmaking making power must be exercised in accordance with the constitution.
“So we are not allowed to substitute our views, our emotions however widespread and popular for what the constitution says.
“The constitution has carefully set out a chapter on fundamental freedoms and rights of all persons including people who are not even Ghanaians but who live in Ghana. It does a very careful balancing act of setting out these freedoms and also the conditions under which those freedoms can be tampered with.”
She added “We were grateful that we were given a hearing, we believe that the committee was fair and listened to us carefully, asked us a lot of questions. We believe that they will take our submissions seriously and that it will assist them to come to a decision on this bill which is most heinous, most obnoxious and against all the tenets of the constitution which all Members of Parliament are sworn to up hold.
“We know that the law is in the bosom of the of the judge, parliament is also is the ultimate lawmaker however, in making laws they have sworn to the oath that they took as Members of Parliament to uphold the constitution which lays down the procedure for making laws, it says laws ought to be made consistent with the provisions of the constitution.”
During the first sitting, a member of the committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, Ursula Owusu-Ekuful, said the bill would go through changes.
The Member of Parliament for Ablekuma West explained during the first public sitting of the committee to deliberate on the memos that have been presented on the bill that, just as with all other bills that eventually get passed by Parliament go through reviews, the anti-gay bill will also be subjected to the same treatment.
It is highly possible that the bill will not be the same after passage, she said.
She further asked the Pentecostal and Charismatic Council (PCC), to rephrase their memo that was presented to Parliament on the bill.
The Minister of Communications noted that the memo which was presented on behalf of the PCC by Apostle Ofori Kurago, called on parliamentarians to be mindful of the electorate when making contributions to the discussion.
But in her view, this amounts to ‘veiled threat’ directed at the lawmakers.
“You seem to issue a veil threat to the parliamentarians who have to be mindful if the electorate in the work that we are doing and in your assertion that this will be one of the most important pieces of legislation that this house will consider.
“But this process would also result in significant changes to the bill and so the bill as we have seen it now , as with all processes of the passage of legislation in this house , the bill that is introduced is not the one that is eventually passed into law .
‘So if you are telling us that that you support his bill as it is, that we should do our work mindful of the people out there then you are hampering us the free expression in the performance of our duties as members of Parliament and so I will entreat you to rephrase that because it didn’t come across to is well. It is as if you are telling us to be mindful of what we are doing and that any changes might result in some attack or otherwise for us doing our works.”
