Supreme Court of Ghana Rejects Arguments for Legalizing Homosexuality and Unnatural Carnal Knowledge

Supreme Court of Ghana Rejects Arguments for Legalizing Homosexuality and Unnatural Carnal Knowledge. In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of Ghana addressed the arguments presented by Dr. Obiri Korang, a law lecturer, seeking to legalize homosexuality and other forms of unnatural carnal knowledge. Dr. Korang’s appeal was based on three primary arguments: the right to privacy, consent among adults, and individual freedom of choice. However, these arguments were systematically rejected by the Court in a concurring opinion delivered by Justice Yonni Kulendi.

Arguments Presented

1. Right to Privacy: Dr. Korang contended that the constitutional protection of privacy under Article 18(2) should extend to acts of unnatural carnal knowledge because such acts occur in private spaces, away from public view. He argued that these acts do not pose a risk to public safety and should therefore be exempt from criminalization.
2. Consent Among Adults: The lecturer posited that since unnatural carnal knowledge occurs between consenting adults, it should be exempt from legal scrutiny. He asserted that the consent of those involved legitimizes the conduct, rendering legal intervention unnecessary.
3. Freedom of Choice: Dr. Korang argued that individual autonomy should allow people the freedom to choose how they conduct their lives, including engaging in unnatural carnal knowledge, provided that no harm comes to others.

Court’s Rebuttal

Justice Kulendi, writing on behalf of a seven-judge panel led by Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, dismissed these arguments as flawed and inadequate.

1. Privacy Argument: Justice Kulendi criticized the notion that the private context of an act should exempt it from legal scrutiny. He reasoned that if privacy alone could shield acts from legal consequences, it could lead to the decriminalization of other illegal activities conducted in private, such as drug use. He emphasized that the law must maintain its potency and purpose by not allowing the privacy argument to undermine criminal statutes. Justice Kulendi argued that the private context is an insufficient justification for extending constitutional privacy protections to acts that are already outlawed.
2. Consent Argument: On the matter of consent, Justice Kulendi noted that consent is not a universal defense against criminalization. He pointed out that legal frameworks do not recognize consent as a justification for offenses such as incest or bigamy.
3. Freedom of Choice Argument: Justice Kulendi acknowledged the importance of individual choice but stressed that this does not automatically warrant legal protection. He cautioned against elevating personal choice to the level of a constitutional right without broader societal considerations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the limitations of privacy, consent, and personal choice as arguments for legalizing homosexuality and unnatural carnal knowledge. This decision reflects a cautious approach to extending constitutional protections and highlights the Court’s commitment to upholding existing legal standards. Supreme Court of Ghana Rejects Arguments for Legalizing Homosexuality and Unnatural Carnal Knowledge.