
Obuasi SHTS scandal: From headmaster’s suspension to school reopening, a timeline of events
7 mins read
29th February 2024 12:08:58 PM
2 mins readBy: Chris Kodo

An advocate against the Sexual Human Rights and Family Values Bill, Emerita Professor Takyiwaa Manuh, has voiced her disappointment over the potential assent by President Akufo-Addo.
The bill, which seeks to outlaw LGBTQI+ activities and penalize their promotion, advocacy, and funding, was passed by Parliament on Wednesday, February 28, 2024, following the completion of the Third Reading.
In an interview with Starr News, Prof Manuh expressed her disapproval of the bill, citing concerns about its necessity and constitutional compatibility. She argued that the bill, if signed into law, would be a violation of Article 108 of the Constitution, particularly regarding its enforcement provisions, which could impose financial burdens on the public purse.
"The reason why the President has not assented to the other private members bills that were sent to him was that they violate Article 108 of the Constitution. I believe that this bill violates Article 108 even more because every part of it is about enforcement, which is going to be a charge on the public purse. So if we are to follow the president’s reasoning, I will be surprised if he assents to this bill," Prof. Manuh stated.
She emphasized the importance of upholding the rule of law and respecting constitutional rights and freedoms for all citizens, regardless of their religion or identity. Prof. Manuh stressed that no law or act should be inconsistent with the Constitution, particularly concerning provisions that govern fundamental rights and freedoms.
"We live in a country that is governed by the rule of law; we live under a constitution. No law, no Act that is passed can be inconsistent with the Constitution. Therefore, if there are violations of the Constitution, especially as regards the rights and freedoms that are guaranteed to all Ghanaians, the Constitution does not begin to differentiate according to your religion or identity. This law is unnecessary; we already have provisions in our laws that govern all matters," she asserted.
7 mins read
3 mins read
2 mins read
3 mins read
3 mins read
1 min read
1 min read
2 mins read
2 mins read