In a courageous stand against the controversial anti-LGBT Bill currently before Parliament in Ghana, Accra-based businessman Henry Kojo Tetteh faces alarming threats to his life.
Undeterred by the intimidation, Tetteh has petitioned the Supreme Court, seeking an interpretation of the bill's constitutionality and its potential infringement on human rights.
The petitioner alleges that his opposition to the Bill has led to stigmatization, threats of harm, physical confrontations, and even heinous threats of non-consensual violence to "prove his true intentions."
Despite the chilling threats, Tetteh remains steadfast, focusing on the actual content of the legislation and its implications for fundamental freedoms such as press freedoms and freedoms of association.
Tetteh decries the deliberate misinformation surrounding the Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights And Ghanaian Family Values Bill, 2021.
He contends that some media outlets wrongly associate the bill with efforts to legalize LGBT practices in the country.
However, Tetteh emphasizes that the bill's scope goes beyond legalization and is more concerned with the interpretation of constitutional rights.
The atmosphere has become increasingly hostile for those expressing dissenting opinions on the Bill, with individuals facing attacks and intimidation for questioning its provisions.
Despite the threats, Tetteh's determination to challenge the legislation remains unwavering.
When questioned about seeking police protection, Tetteh revealed that his lawyers have advised him to remain calm, as they will take up the matter.
He remains resolute in his pursuit of justice and hopes that the Supreme Court's interpretation will shed light on the Bill's impact on basic human rights.
The petition, currently before the Supreme Court reads in part:
The cumulative effect of the Bill under reference pending before Parliament is to interfere with freedoms and rights afforded to the citizenry and take away the rights of the persons who have sexual preferences other than what is known to the general populace. Indeed, the rights of the citizenry are recognized in the Criminal and Other Offences Act. Act 29
The lack of consent criminalizes any sexual act including natural and unnatural acts. I would reproduce the provision on unnatural carnal knowledge captured in section 104 of Act 29.
Unnatural carnal knowledge
(1) A person who has unnatural carnal knowledge
(a) of another person of not less than sixteen years of age without the consent of that other
a person commits a first-degree felony and is liable on conviction to a term of imprisonment of not less than five years and not more than twenty-five years; or
(b) of another person of not less than sixteen years of age with the consent of that other person commits a misdemeanor; or
(c) of an animal commits a misdemeanor.
(2) Unnatural carnal knowledge is sexual intercourse with a person in an unnatural manner or, with an animal.
Sexual behavior between consenting adults ought not to warrant interference by the state. Indeed, the Criminal and Other Offences Act, has undergone various forms of amendment but not once has there been an attempt to criminalize a sexual act between two consenting adults that appears to be different from what others perceive as normal. The lawmakers knew and have always known that the state is precluded from delving into matters personal between two adults who are ad idem with each other. This explains why unnatural carnal knowledge is a crime only if the same is done without the consent of the other party or the other party is below the age of 16 years.
The Bill prohibits the forming of an association comprising these categories of persons listed in the preceding paragraphs, and further bans the participation of this association Meanwhile, freedom of association is guaranteed under Article 21 of the 1992.
The Bill further seeks to prohibit the practicing of any activity relating to this community. This is contrary to Article 26) which provides that every person is entitled to enjoy, practice, profess, maintain, and promote any culture, language, tradition, or religion subject to the provisions of this Constitution.
It is worth of note that this provision is indeed unfettered.
Proponents of this Bill are of the view that the same ought to be passed as it is in line with the public interest. However, the activities of these persons are personal to each other between two consenting adults and do not affect the public adversely. Their activity is subject to the provisions of the criminal code which adequately address any eventualities that may result therefrom.
The Bill is repugnant to the Constitution in that it leads to the subjective discretion of people of the general populace to determine whether a person belongs to that group. Exercise of subjective discretion, most often than not, leads to unfounded and unsubstantiated complaints to the Police. This becomes a vindictive tool to be used by people who have issues with each other. The bill would only open a Pandora's box leading to unwarranted chaos to the detriment of all and sundry. The bill should not see the light of day.
It is trite learning that the Constitution cannot be amended by statute. The bill has the effect of limiting the invocation and application of Articles, 12, 17, 21, and 26. In other words, the bill has the effect of discriminating against certain categories of people or persons, thereby abusing their fundamental human rights.
The Constitution is a living document and to give meaning to recourse should be given to the intent of the framers of the Constitution. It is, therefore, not the intent of the Constitution to subject-specific categories of persons to different treatment because of their sexual preferences and orientation when the same is between two consenting adults. The Bill in its entirety is discriminatory and a gross abuse of the fundamental Human Rights enshrined in the 1992 Constitution.