LGBTQ: CJG Is Lying; The Injunction Case Has Been Heard. All Arguments Have Been Made—Samuel Nartey.
The debate surrounding LGBTQ rights in Ghana continues to intensify as notable lawyer and social commentator, Samuel Nartey, has accused the Coalition for Justice in Ghana (CJG) of spreading falsehoods regarding the legal battle over the contentious anti-LGBTQ+ bill. Nartey has asserted that claims by CJG suggesting that the injunction case has not been heard are not only misleading but also an attempt to manipulate public sentiment.
Speaking at a press briefing, Nartey clarified that the case was heard in full, with all arguments presented before the judiciary. He emphasized, “The injunction application concerning the passage of the anti-LGBTQ+ bill has been argued and concluded. CJG’s claims that the matter is still pending or unheard are false and serve no purpose other than to mislead the public.”
The Background of the Case
The injunction was filed as part of efforts to challenge the controversial Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill 2021, which seeks to criminalize LGBTQ+ activities in Ghana. The bill has drawn criticism locally and internationally, with activists arguing that it infringes on human rights and undermines Ghana’s commitment to global treaties.
CJG, a vocal advocate for the LGBTQ+ community, has been at the forefront of opposing the bill. According to CJG, the injunction case, aimed at halting parliamentary deliberations on the bill, was either stalled or ignored by the judiciary. However, Samuel Nartey refuted these assertions, insisting that legal processes have been followed diligently.
The Court Proceedings
Nartey explained that during the hearing, arguments were presented by both proponents and opponents of the bill. “The applicants laid out their case, highlighting concerns over constitutional breaches and potential harm to marginalized groups. Conversely, the respondents argued the necessity of the bill to safeguard Ghanaian cultural values,” he said.
While the court has yet to deliver a ruling on the injunction, Nartey maintained that all procedural requirements were met. He criticized CJG for creating an impression of judicial neglect, saying, “The courts are not biased, nor are they delaying justice. Spreading such narratives erodes public trust in our judiciary.”
Broader Implications
This controversy occurs amidst heightened tensions over LGBTQ+ rights in Ghana. Supporters of the anti-LGBTQ+ bill argue that it protects the moral fabric of society, while opponents see it as a draconian measure that marginalizes an already vulnerable community.
Nartey urged stakeholders to remain patient as the judiciary carries out its mandate. He also called for respectful discourse on LGBTQ+ issues, cautioning against propaganda and misinformation. “We can disagree, but we must do so truthfully and responsibly. This is a sensitive issue with far-reaching implications for Ghana’s democracy and human rights record,” he noted.
Conclusion
The clash between CJG and Samuel Nartey underscores the polarized nature of the LGBTQ+ debate in Ghana. While the injunction case awaits a verdict, it is clear that tensions will remain high. In such a critical period, transparency and adherence to facts are essential to foster informed and constructive dialogue.
Nartey’s statements serve as a reminder of the need for accountability, not only within legal processes but also in the narratives shaping public opinion. As Ghana navigates this complex issue, the role of truth and integrity cannot be overstated.
blogpay
Total Comments: 0