The wrangle over the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2025 popularly referred to as the Anti-LGBTQI+ Bill in Ghana, has been heightened following a controversial passing of the new legislation by Parliament.
Parliament passed an amended version of the original Bill on Friday May 29, 2026 in spite of strong opposition by the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Minority Caucus, which insisted the new legislation contained numerous amendments that have weakened its intended force and betrayed public expectations.
Questioned the sincerity of the governing National Democratic Congress (NDC), the Minority described the revised legislation as “dangerous dilutions.”
It argued that Parliament should restore the earlier version passed in 2024 but was not assented to by the President due to legal challenges.
However, the NDC Majority group, led by Mr Mahama Ayariga, dismissed the suggestion, insisting the law was properly passed with the revised provisions that will withstand constitutional scrutiny, particularly in areas relating to media coverage and legal representation of alleged offenders.
But to add confusion to disbelief, President John Dramani Mahama and Speaker of Parliament Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin argued there were procedural lapses in passing the Bill, suggesting Parliament probably has more work to do on the legislation.
“Parliament has been considering it and it was supposed to have been passed last week. There have a few issues raised when it was passed. That one, there was no quorum when was it was passed. That’s an issue that has come up. And then two, there were some procedural lapses in terms of its passage.
“I just got some communication that the speaker was reading a statement to address the issue of the lapses in the passage of the bill. And so, like I said, when I was the opposition leader, the president has a number of options in this matter.
“It must come for assent and so once the president gets it, you go through it because you are not part of the discussion in Parliament. And so the legal representative, the legal counsel in the presidency and the Attorney General would sit on it because it was a private member’s motion. This was not a government bill.
“And so we’ll look at it and make sure that everything is in order before the president is advised to assent. The president has another option if there are some things that he thinks are a problem, he can refer to the Council of State for advice. The Council of State is an advisory body to the president and so they’ll take a look at it and then they’ll advise the president. And if there are issues, substantial issues that are raised, the president would return the bill to Parliament indicating exactly what the issues are. And so there’s still quite a while to go before that bill becomes law,” President Mahama narrated to Chatham House on the sidelines of Ghana–UK Investment Summit 2026 in London.
Bagbin expresses surprise
Speaker Alban Bagbin has expressed surprise over the decision to pass the bill last Friday, noting that he had expected Parliament to commence only the consideration stage before he left the House.
Speaking to journalists on Monday, June 1, Mr. Bagbin said, “In fact, when it was passed on Friday, it was even a surprise to me because I knew that they were going to start the consideration of the bill.”
Accordingly, the Speaker has summoned the leadership of the House for discussions on the issue, insisting that there must be consensus on the legislation to ensure its effective implementation and public acceptance.
He disclosed that there are a wide range of stakeholders, including development partners and the United Nations, who had submitted memoranda and proposals on the legislation.
“This is such a critical bill that we believe there must be consensus. It’s not about passing the bill; it’s about implementing it and making sure that it benefits the people,” he stated.
Minority’s argument
Addressing a news conference on June 1, 2026, the Minority caucus questioned the rationale behind changes to the legislation before its expected consideration for presidential assent.
Rev John Ntim Fordjour and Alhassan Tampuli co-sponsors of the Private Member’s Bill, queried, “What changed?”, referring to differences between the version of the Bill presented in 2024 and the revised version reintroduced in 2025.
Reading an official statement from the Minority, Rev Ntim Fordjour recalled members of the NDC previously informed Ghanaians that the Bill had been passed in 2024 and required only presidential assent.
However, the legislation was returned to Parliament with extensive revisions, raising questions about the consistency of its legislative trajectory.
Minority questions revision process
According to Rev. Ntim Fordjour, the bill that was originally passed contained 19 clauses and that the reintroduced version now includes 31 amendments involving deletions, substitutions, insertions, and the introduction of entirely new provisions.
The Minority argued that the extent of the changes raises concerns about whether the current version retains the original intent and strength of the Bill as previously presented to the public.
Rev. Ntim Fordjour stressed that while the Minority MPs are not opposed to the Bill itself or Parliament’s authority to legislate, he insisted that clarity was needed regarding what necessitated the revisions.
Concerns over legislative consistency
Rev. Ntim Fordjour questioned why a Bill that was previously described as complete would later require what they termed “extensive legislative surgery.”
He further asked why the legislation was not presented in its original form for presidential assent.
The lawmaker said the situation has created uncertainty about the decision-making process behind the amendments and whether key policy positions have shifted between the earlier and current versions of the Bill.
According to him, 22 original provisions have been deleted and replaced with 31 new provisions.
This, he argued, raises concerns about whether the revised Bill maintains the same policy direction as the earlier version.
Focus on Clause 9 Amendment
A significant portion of the Minority’s concerns centred on Clause 9 of the Bill, which they described as a key component of the original legislation.
Clause 9 previously addressed the prohibition of propaganda, promotion, and advocacy for activities prohibited under the Act, including penalties ranging from five to ten years imprisonment.
Rev. Ntim Fordjour noted that the revised version introduces broad exemptions under this clause.
These exemptions, he pointed out, cover legal representation, academic and scientific work, medical practice, government institutions, non-governmental organisations, development partners, journalism, and public health-related activities.
According to him, these additions significantly alter the scope of enforcement and raise questions about whether the clause still carries the same deterrent effect as originally intended.
Broader legislative changes highlighted
Beyond Clause 9, Rev. Ntim Fordjour also pointed to several other amendments across the Bill.
These include changes to definitions, revisions to provisions relating to adoption and fosterage, and the introduction of new clauses such as those addressing extrajudicial treatment and reporting obligations.
He also noted changes to multiple definitions within the Bill, including terms relating to family values, marriage, and gender identity, among others.
Rev. Ntim Fordjour maintained that the cumulative effect of these amendments may have substantially changed the structure and focus of the legislation.
Calls for accountability and transparency
Rev Ntim Fordjour used the news conference to demand answers from the government and relevant parliamentary actors.
He posed several questions, including what informed the decision to revise the Bill, why it was not reintroduced in its original form, and what specific concerns led to the amendments.
The Assin South MP further questioned whether Clause 9 in its revised form still reflects the original legislative intent and whether the current version of the bill preserves what they described as its foundational strength.
He stated that the Ghanaian public deserves clear explanations regarding the evolution of the Bill, particularly given the level of public interest and debate it has generated over the years.
The MP insisted that until clear explanations are provided, questions will remain about whether the revised Bill reflects continuity in policy or a significant departure from its earlier version.
