The Minority in Parliament has raised concerns over what it describes as significant amendments to the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, referred to as the anti-LGBTQ+ bill, questioning the rationale behind changes made to the legislation before its expected consideration for presidential assent.
At a press conference in Accra, the Minority led John Ntim Fordjour asked what it described as a central question: “What changed?”—referring to differences between the version of the Bill presented in 2024 and the revised version reintroduced in 2026.
According to him, Ghanaians were previously informed that the Bill had been completed in 2024 and required only presidential assent. However, they say the legislation has since returned to Parliament with extensive revisions, raising questions about the consistency of its legislative trajectory.
Minority questions revision process
Ntim Fordjour stated that the bill, as originally passed, contained 19 clauses. They allege 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.
While stressing that they are not opposed to the bill itself or Parliament’s authority to legislate, Fordjour insisted that clarity was needed regarding what necessitated the revisions.
Concerns over legislative consistency
Ntim Fordjour questioned why a Bill that was previously described as complete would later require what they termed “extensive legislative surgery.” They further asked why the revised version was not presented in its original form for presidential assent.
He 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.
He further alleged that 22 original provisions have been deleted and replaced with 31 new provisions. According to them, this raises concerns about whether the revised Bill maintains the same policy direction as the earlier version.
Focus on Clause 9 Amendments
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.
Ntim claimed that the revised version introduces broad exemptions under this clause. These exemptions reportedly 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, he 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.
Fordjour argued that the cumulative effect of these amendments may have substantially changed the structure and focus of the legislation.
Calls for accountability and transparency
He used the press conference to demand answers from the government and relevant parliamentary actors. They 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 also 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.
Conclusion
Fordjour concluded that while they support efforts to legislate on human sexual rights and family values, they remain concerned about what they describe as major changes to the Bill’s original framework.
He 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.
