Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo engaged in a fast-paced exchange with a senior counsel during the Supreme Court’s sitting on the anti-LGBT+ Bill on Wednesday, May 8, 2024.
The lawyer in question was Thaddeus Sory, counsel for Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, a respondent in both cases before the apex court.
“I am not impressed with what you are doing,” the CJ said at a point when her exchanges with Sory kept dragging over a preliminary objection the lawyer sought to raise against a request by the petitioners.
“You can hear me very well, you appreciate the pickle we are in? You filed an affidavit on the 15th of … please hold on,” she said as Sory gave crisp responses to her submissions.
“Don’t interrupt me, please, always wait for me to land,” the CJ stressed before adding: “Your substantive affidavit before us is dated 2nd of April, listen, let me land.
“If you had waited to understand my words instead of rushing to justify yourself, you would have admitted that you didn’t have a formal notice to object,” a position the lawyer appeared to disagree with.
The Chief Justice then asked the lawyer about the “legality” of his position which gave Sory the opportunity to speak out.
“The legality lies in the fact that the motion paper invoked the jurisdiction of the court and if there is an irregularity on the face of the motion paper, i.e. his motion for injunction,” he submitted.
After the exchanges and other deliberations, the court ruled that Sory’s objection was unnecessary and granted leave for the petitioners to proceed with their line of action.
The apex court after the ruling was compelled to adjourn proceedings in both cases to offer lawyers for the Speaker and Richard Sky to file processes in accordance with the guidance offered by the court.
For Richard Sky (one of the petitioners), he is to refile his application for injunction capturing all the changes he wishes to make to his earlier filed application.
For Amanda Odoi (the other petitioner), Counsel for the Speaker of Parliament, the learned Thaddeus Sory is to re-file a supplementary affidavit he wishes to be adopted by the court in opposition to the application for injunction filed by Dr Amanda Odoi.
The Court presided over by the Chief Justice ordered for paragraphs containing intemperate language to be removed in The Speaker’s affidavit and the supplementary affidavit re-filed in 7 days.
