A proposal seeking to make paternity testing compulsory for all babies born in healthcare facilities in Ghana is generating significant public interest because it promises certainty and accountability.
At first glance, the proposal appears attractive. Few people would argue against the pursuit of truth in matters of parentage. Yet, truth in law cannot be pursued in isolation from fairness, justice, human dignity, and the welfare of the child.
This author believes the proposed legislation, if enacted in its current form, risks introducing suspicion into the very foundation of family life while disproportionately burdening mothers under the guise of legal certainty.
The proposal seeks not only to mandate universal DNA testing at birth, but also to criminalise what proponents describe as “paternity fraud.”
Also read: No school should charge fees – GES declares
The central difficulty, however, lies in the assumption that a biological mismatch revealed through DNA testing is automatically evidence of deliberate deception.
That assumption is deeply flawed.
A DNA test can establish or exclude biological linkage. It cannot determine intention, motive or knowledge. Yet the proposed framework risks treating scientific outcomes as proof of criminal conduct.
The distinction matters because criminal law punishes intentional wrongdoing, not unfortunate biological outcomes, scientific anomalies or honest mistakes.
There are situations where biological mismatches occur without fraud or deception.
In family court practice, this author encountered a case where DNA testing excluded both parents biologically from twins they had delivered. The issue was not deception by the mother, but institutional failure involving the handling of newborns.
Hospital systems, though generally reliable, are not immune from error. Baby mix-ups, though rare, can occur.
A legal framework that examines only paternity while ignoring the possibility of institutional failures or maternity-related errors risks creating a system designed to reach a predetermined conclusion rather than uncover the full truth.
The proposal’s focus is also structurally selective.
It interrogates paternity but leaves maternity untouched, even though both form part of the broader question of parentage.
Where a mismatch arises, suspicion would almost inevitably fall on the mother, reinforcing the perception that the proposed legislation is less about parentage and more about policing female fidelity.
The concern becomes even clearer when considering rare but scientifically recognised phenomena such as heteropaternal superfecundation, where twins may have different biological fathers.
The internationally documented case of the Osbourne twins demonstrated precisely this reality. The mother involved committed no fraud and could not reasonably have known the twins had different fathers.
Yet under a rigid legal framework that equates DNA mismatch with deception, such a mother could easily become the subject of criminal investigation or public stigma.
This exposes the danger of treating biological outcomes as moral verdicts.
Ghana’s legal framework already provides a coherent system for handling issues of parentage.
Section 32 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323), presumes that a child born within marriage is the husband’s child. The principle is not designed to deny biology, but to protect the child from legal uncertainty at birth.
Similarly, the Children’s Act, 1998 (Act 560), places the welfare and best interest of the child at the centre of legal decision-making.
The law therefore ensures that every child begins life with legal identity, belonging and protection, while disputes over parentage may later be resolved through the courts where necessary.
This author believes replacing that long-established presumption with compulsory verification fundamentally alters the philosophy of Ghanaian family law.
Under the proposed arrangement, legal fatherhood may become conditional on laboratory confirmation rather than immediate legal recognition.
That raises troubling practical implications.
Where a husband is unavailable at the time of birth, perhaps because he is abroad, travelling or working elsewhere, the child could remain temporarily fatherless in law until testing is completed.
Such uncertainty would undermine access to support, inheritance rights and legal recognition at the earliest stage of life.
The timing of compulsory testing also presents moral and emotional concerns.
Childbirth is a period of physical vulnerability and emotional adjustment. Introducing compulsory DNA testing at that moment risks transforming healthcare spaces into environments of suspicion rather than care and reassurance.
The economic burden associated with universal testing would also be enormous.
A nationwide programme would require major investments in laboratory facilities, personnel, storage systems and administrative oversight.
This author believes it would be difficult to justify diverting scarce public resources towards universal paternity testing while healthcare facilities continue to struggle with maternal care, emergency services and staffing shortages.
If families themselves are made to bear the cost, the injustice remains.
A mother recovering from childbirth may be compelled to pay for a test that effectively questions her honesty. A father with no doubts about his child may still be required to finance testing merely because the law presumes suspicion.
In every scenario, families are burdened with an unnecessary expense imposed without regard to actual need.
The institutional risks are equally serious.
Any error in sample collection, labelling, storage or laboratory handling could produce false results capable of causing emotional trauma, family conflict and wrongful accusations.
A system dependent on near-perfect administrative performance in an already strained healthcare environment demands careful scrutiny.
The proposal also raises important international human rights concerns.
Ghana is party to several international treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Maputo Protocol.
These instruments require the protection of privacy, dignity, equality and the best interest of the child.
Compulsory DNA testing for all births risks conflicting with these obligations by introducing blanket state interference into private family life while disproportionately targeting mothers.
This author believes Ghana’s existing legal system already provides the appropriate balance.
DNA testing remains available where genuine disputes arise, subject to judicial oversight and legal safeguards. That approach addresses legitimate concerns without turning every childbirth into an investigation.
The law must pursue truth carefully, not recklessly.
It must recognise that parentage involves not only biology, but also human dignity, stability, family protection and the welfare of innocent children.
At the moment a woman brings new life into the world, exhausted physically and emotionally, the role of the law should be to protect rather than to presume wrongdoing.
Ghana must, therefore, approach any reform in this area with caution, fairness and humanity.
The pursuit of biological certainty should never come at the expense of justice, dignity and the foundational protections long afforded to mothers and children under Ghanaian law.
Source: Justice Sedinam Awo Kwadam