By Daniel Bampoe
A fresh confrontation has erupted in Parliament over the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2025, with Speaker Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin raising serious procedural concerns over the manner in which the legislation was passed as President John Dramani Mahama indicating that the bill still faces further scrutiny before any assent.
However, the Majority Leader Mahama Ayariga insists that Parliament acted lawfully and that the Speaker cannot reverse a decision already taken by the House.
The latest dispute has exposed growing divisions over the controversial legislation, particularly after Parliament approved a series of amendments that some sponsors of the bill argue have significantly weakened its original intent.
The controversy has also revived debates about the National Democratic Congress’ previous position on the bill while in opposition and the government’s current handling of the legislation now that it is in power.
The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, popularly known as the Anti-LGBTQ Bill, was first introduced in Parliament in 2021 as a bipartisan private member’s bill sponsored by lawmakers from both the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC).
The legislation sought to prohibit LGBTQ-related activities, advocacy, promotion and funding in Ghana and gained strong backing from religious bodies, traditional authorities and conservative groups across the country.
Following extensive consultations and parliamentary debates, the Eighth Parliament passed the bill on February 28, 2024.
However, legal challenges at the Supreme Court and the subsequent dissolution of Parliament prevented the legislation from receiving presidential assent, causing it to lapse.
The bill was later reintroduced in the Ninth Parliament with broad bipartisan support.
The latest controversy began on May 29, 2026, when Parliament passed the reintroduced Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill after approving more than 30 amendments.
Among the most significant changes were exemptions granted to lawyers providing legal representation to LGBTQ persons, journalists and media organizations reporting on LGBTQ-related matters, and medical professionals offering healthcare, counselling or psychological services to such persons.
The amendments immediately sparked objections from some sponsors of the legislation, particularly Assin South MP, Rev. John Ntim Fordjour and Bosome Freho MP Nana Asafo-Adjei Ayeh.
They argued that the exemptions diluted the original purpose of the bill and raised questions about whether the version previously presented for assent under the Akufo-Addo administration had suddenly become inadequate.
Their concerns deepened when it emerged that several Minority sponsors were absent during the final stages of the bill’s passage. Questions were also raised about whether Parliament had fully complied with its Standing Orders before approving the legislation.
Those concerns were subsequently echoed by Speaker Alban Bagbin, who disclosed that he had expected the House only to begin consideration of the bill and was surprised to learn that all legislative stages had been completed on the same day.
Formal Statement
In a formal statement to Parliament, the Speaker pointed to concerns regarding Orders 170, 171 and 172 of the Standing Orders.
According to Bagbin, Order 170 requires all approved amendments to be accurately incorporated into a bill and made available to Members before Third Reading.
Order 171 allows Members to seek a second consideration of a bill before final passage, while Order 172 stipulates that at least one sitting day should elapse between the Consideration Stage and Third Reading unless Parliament formally suspends the Standing Orders.
The Speaker noted that concerns had been raised about whether Members had access to the final amended text before voting and whether the bipartisan consensus reflected in the committee’s report was adequately demonstrated on the floor of Parliament.
He stressed that while he was not determining the validity of those concerns, they were significant enough to warrant reconsideration of the bill in the interest of parliamentary integrity, transparency and national consensus.
Alban Bagbin consequently appealed to Parliament to revisit the legislation, arguing that a bill of such national importance should command broad bipartisan support and strict adherence to parliamentary procedures.
He maintained that any law dealing with such a sensitive issue must be able to withstand legal and constitutional scrutiny both locally and internationally.
Long Road To Go
The Speaker’s intervention came shortly after President John Mahama also signaled that the legislation still had a long path to travel before it could become law.
Speaking during an engagement in London, the President stated that the bill would undergo legal and constitutional scrutiny once it reached his desk.
President John Mahama explained that because the legislation originated as a private member’s bill rather than a government bill, legal advisers at the Presidency and the Attorney-General’s Department would carefully review it before any decision on assent could be made.
He further pointed to concerns that had been raised regarding parliamentary quorum and procedural compliance during the bill’s passage.
The President indicated that if substantial legal issues emerged during the review process, he retained the constitutional authority to return the bill to Parliament with observations for reconsideration.
He also acknowledged that he had received information regarding the Speaker’s concerns over the legislative process.
However, the Speaker’s position and the President’s comments have been strongly challenged by Majority Leader Mahama Ayariga, who insists that Parliament acted within the law and that no parliamentary rules were breached during the bill’s passage.
Speaking on Eyewitness News, Ayariga maintained that the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill was lawfully passed and that the Speaker’s statement amounted only to an appeal rather than a binding directive capable of overturning Parliament’s decision.
According to the Majority Leader, Parliament properly invoked a procedural motion to abridge time, thereby allowing lawmakers to proceed through the final legislative stages on the same day.
He argued that such motions are routinely used by Parliament and are fully recognized under parliamentary practice.
Mahama Ayariga further dismissed claims that Rev. John Ntim Fordjour could have withdrawn the bill or halted its consideration.
He emphasized that the legislation had multiple sponsors from both sides of the House and therefore could not be withdrawn solely at the instance of one Member.
“The Speaker is only appealing. He cannot reverse what has happened. The bill was passed lawfully and the necessary procedural motion was moved and approved,” Mahama Ayariga maintained.
