Minority Questions Flip-Flop on Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill
The Minority in Parliament has called out the governing National Democratic Congress (NDC) for a perceived contradiction in their approach to the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill. While previously suggesting the bill was ready for presidential assent, the government has now introduced 31 amendments, prompting questions about what prompted the change. Assin South MP Rev. John Ntim Fordjour led the charge, demanding an explanation for the shift from 'sign it now' to 'amend it first'. He highlighted that these are not minor edits but include the deletion and replacement of clauses and the introduction of new exceptions, significantly altering the bill's legal scope. The Minority insists the public deserves a transparent account of the reasons behind these substantial revisions.
The Minority in Parliament has demanded answers from the National Democratic Congress (NDC). They describe a major contradiction in handling the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill. This bill is also known as the anti-LGBTQ+ bill. It was once presented as ready for presidential assent. Now it has undergone extensive revisions before returning to Parliament.
Assin South MP Rev. John Ntim Fordjour stated this at a press conference. He said the public was told in 2024 the bill needed only former President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo's signature. Churches, traditional leaders, and civil society groups were informed Parliament had finished its work. They were told the only remaining step was presidential approval. This message fostered a belief the bill was complete and in its final form.
The reintroduced Bill now contains 31 amendments. These changes affect various parts of the legislation. They include definitions and reporting requirements. Criminal sanctions and institutional safeguards are also altered. Rev. Fordjour highlighted the change, saying, "The same public that was told ‘sign it now’ is now seeing ‘amend it first’. So we ask again: what changed?" This shift in government messaging has created confusion and distrust, as the public perception of the bill's status appears to have drastically changed without clear explanation.
These amendments are not mere drafting corrections. Rev. Fordjour argued they involve deleting and replacing entire clauses. New exceptions have been introduced. The legal character of some offences has also been modified. Such significant changes make it difficult to uphold the earlier argument. That argument stated the bill was complete and beyond further review. Public finance and regulatory clarity are at stake when laws undergo such substantial, unexplained revisions.
The Minority MP insists the government owes Ghanaians an explanation. They must clarify what informed these changes. They must also explain when the concerns behind them were identified. "You cannot tell Ghanaians yesterday that a Bill requires only a signature and then today return with amendments without explaining what happened in between. The Ghanaian people deserve clear answers," he stated. The delay and debate around the bill's progression can impact investor confidence and public discourse, highlighting a need for transparency in governance. This situation also raises questions about parliamentary oversight and the legislative process itself.
Source: StatsGH — Ghana's data-driven news platform