The Minority in Parliament has challenged the government and promoters of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill to explain why a measure they previously described as ready for presidential assent has now returned to Parliament with extensive amendments.
Addressing a press conference in Accra on Monday, Reverend John Ntim Fordjour asked what had changed between 2024, when supporters of the Bill insisted it required only the signature of then-President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, and 2026, when the legislation was reintroduced with 31 amendments.
The caucus argued that the revised version of the Bill raises questions about whether the original legislation was as complete and ready for assent as proponents claimed.
“We have called this press conference to ask a simple but serious question on behalf of the Ghanaian people: What changed?” the Minority said.
According to the Reverend John Ntim Fordjour Parliament passed the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill on February 28, 2024, and supporters subsequently mounted public pressure on former President Akufo-Addo to sign it into law. They cited several lawmakers and advocates who publicly demanded immediate presidential assent.
However, the Minority noted that President John Dramani Mahama has stated that the Bill passed by the Eighth Parliament was not submitted to former President Akufo-Addo for assent because it became the subject of court proceedings.
The caucus argued that this development alters the narrative that the former President was solely responsible for delaying the legislation.
“If the Bill had not been submitted because the matter was in court, why was President Akufo-Addo made the face of delay?” the Minority asked.
The group further contended that the revised Bill contains significant changes that go beyond technical corrections. According to the Minority, the legislation underwent 31 amendments affecting clauses from 1 to 18, including the introduction of a new clause and additional institutional safeguards.
Among the changes highlighted were the replacement of certain definitions and phrases, revisions to provisions on prohibited conduct, the deletion and replacement of an entire clause dealing with premises used for prohibited acts, and the introduction of exemptions covering legal representation, journalism, academic work, medical opinions, counselling services, public health information and privileged communications.
The Minority also pointed to changes in criminal classifications and the removal or revision of provisions relating to the alleged subversion of family values, arguing that these alterations affect the force and legal character of the Bill.
“That is not a minor correction. It goes to the force, weight and legal character of the Bill,” the caucus said.
The Minority stressed that it was not opposed to the Bill itself, Parliament’s legislative authority, or lawmakers who supported it. Rather, it said its concern was the apparent contradiction between claims that the Bill only required a presidential signature and the subsequent decision to amend multiple provisions before resubmitting it.
The caucus called on the government and promoters of the legislation to explain what prompted the amendments, when concerns about the Bill were identified, and whether those concerns were known when public pressure was being mounted on the former President.
Among the questions raised were why certain provisions were revised, why new institutional protections were introduced, and whether the current version of the Bill retains the same intent and legal effect as the one passed in 2024.
“The Ghanaian people deserve clear answers,” the Minority said, adding that transparency and consistency were essential on an issue of national importance.
The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill remains one of Ghana’s most debated pieces of legislation, attracting significant public, religious and political interest since its introduction.
