Non-public lawyer and activist Osagifo Oliver Barker Vollmawah has questioned the procedural validity of the latest parliamentary passage of a controversial anti-LGBTQ+ invoice, suggesting that it might have been authorised with out the constitutionally required quorum.
In a submit shared on Fb, Barker-Volmawer claimed that solely 34 MPs have been current when the invoice was authorised, suggesting the choice might not meet constitutional procedural necessities.
“It seems the anti-LGBTQ invoice was handed with out a quorum. Solely 34 members of Congress? Hmm,” he wrote, including, “Inform the president. Are we getting a stop and desist letter?”
His feedback subsequently unfold broadly on social media, intensifying debate over each the legality and legitimacy of the legislative course of used to cross the invoice.
The invoice, which seeks to criminalize LGBTQ+ activism and associated advocacy, has reportedly been handed by Congress with a number of amendments in committee.
The proposed amendments additionally embody provisions that may exempt sure classes of pros and organizations from sanctions underneath the regulation.
These embody attorneys who present authorized illustration to people who determine as LGBTQ+, journalists and media shops who report on LGBTQ+ points, and medical professionals who present well being care, counseling, and psychological help.
The amendments have been launched in response to issues raised throughout parliamentary deliberations and stakeholder engagement concerning the Invoice’s potential impression on skilled providers, human rights and entry to important providers.
The revised model of the invoice confronted sturdy opposition from the Home Minority Caucus, who stated the modifications highlighted basic weaknesses within the unique invoice.
Minority lawmakers say the exceptions counsel that the invoice, which was initially submitted for presidential assent underneath the earlier administration, was flawed and wanted main revisions earlier than it could possibly be handed.
They additional argued that the legislative course of raised questions concerning the proposed regulation’s consistency, authorized readability, and potential enforceability.
