Edem Senanu, Chairman of Advocates for Christ, has expressed alarm over procedural and drafting concerns emerging after the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill was passed for a second time by Parliament. Senanu questioned how parliamentary processes could allow such issues to surface after the bill’s successful legislative journey, speaking on JoyNews’ PM Express on Tuesday.
National Consensus and Legislative Hurdles
Senanu highlighted that the bill’s second passage indicates a strong national consensus on the matter. Many observers had anticipated difficulties for the legislation, especially after it had to restart the entire process due to the previous Parliament’s expiration.
“The positive, if for a second time we have arrived at passing the bill, it just tells you that, truly, that unanimity has always been there,” Senanu stated.
He added, “After the first time, having to start the whole process again, one would think that it would get stuck somewhere, but to the extent that they completed the same thing a second time, this tells you that there is a consensus in general on the issue.”
Concerns Over Parliamentary Procedure
Despite the apparent consensus, Senanu voiced his disquiet regarding new questions about parliamentary procedure. These include concerns about quorum and adherence to required legislative steps.
“The part that is questionable for me is, how come the house of procedures and records, I could get it wrong. How would they not recognise that certain steps have not been followed, or the quorum was not there?” he questioned.
“That raises alarms for me,” he concluded.
Scrutiny of Exemptions and Legal Loopholes
Senanu’s concerns extend beyond procedural matters to the content of the bill itself. He noted that his review of the latest version revealed provisions, particularly concerning exemptions, that he believes require further refinement.
“I took a look at the new version, and then especially the exemptions. The exemptions are one in particular that gets me worried,” he said.
He suggested that even if the bill had proceeded to the President for assent, there would still be grounds for further scrutiny of certain provisions, citing Article 106 of the constitution.
“So already in my mind, even if it had gone on to the President, the likelihood we are going to appeal to the President that listens, looking at Article 106, there’s at least one of those exemptions, looking at the number of mental organisations, and whatnot, which is not tight,” Senanu explained.
According to Senanu, the current wording of these exemptions could create legal uncertainty and allow for unintended interpretations.
“It provides a lacuna for the kind of information we don’t want to be out there,” he warned.
Call for Clarification and Swift Resolution
To prevent future legal disputes, Senanu urged Parliament to clarify these provisions.
“We would still have required that this must come back to parliament to be very clear. Let’s qualify the type of information they are talking about, so that when there’s a case, and we go to court, we can be clear whether there is intent to do something that breaches the law or not,” he stated.
While expressing confidence that the bill is nearing completion, Senanu implored Parliament and the Presidency to address the outstanding issues promptly.
“It’s only between parliament and the president. If there are a few things they need to resolve, they need to get their house in order, resolve them, and move on,” he advised.
Looking Ahead
Senanu reiterated that the concerns now surfacing, whether related to quorum, parliamentary process, or poorly crafted exemptions creating loopholes, should have been resolved much earlier in the legislative process. The focus now shifts to how Parliament and the Presidency will address these procedural and drafting ambiguities to ensure the bill’s final enactment is legally sound and unambiguous.
Leave a Reply