The Minority Caucus in Parliament has challenged the government and the promoters of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill to explain what informed significant changes made to the legislation after years of insisting it only required presidential assent.
The Caucus questioned why the bill, which proponents previously described as complete and ready for assent, returned to Parliament with 31 amendments before being considered under the administration of John Dramani Mahama.
Addressing a press conference in Parliament on Monday, Assin South MP and Ranking Member on the Defence and Interior Committee, John Ntim Fordjour, argued that Ghanaians were repeatedly told in 2024 that the bill required only the signature of former President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo.
Also read: Afenyo-Markin hailed as symbol of selfless leadership and democratic accountability
“Yet the same legislation was later revised extensively before being reintroduced. We ask a simple but serious question on behalf of the Ghanaian people: What changed?” Rev. Ntim Fordjour stated.
The Minority argued that the changes undermine the narrative that the legislation was complete and required no further review.
Rev. Ntim Fordjour said the amendments affected key provisions spanning Clauses 1 to 18, including definitions, criminal classifications, reporting obligations, institutional safeguards, adoption and fosterage provisions, and protections for lawyers, journalists, medical professionals, and counsellors.
“If the original phrase was not clear enough, why was the nation told that the Bill required only a signature?” he asked while citing amendments that replaced or redefined key terms in the legislation.
He also questioned the introduction of exemptions covering legal representation, academic opinions, scientific and medical opinions, public health information, counselling services, journalism, and HIV/AIDS-related services.
“If lawyers, journalists, academics, doctors, counsellors, public-health workers and privileged communications now require protection, why was the Bill previously presented as if no such protection was required?” he queried.
The Minority also raised concerns over the removal or modification of provisions they described as central to the original bill, including clauses dealing with the alleged subversion of family values and certain criminal classifications.
According to Rev. Ntim Fordjour, the government owes Ghanaians a clear explanation regarding the rationale behind the revisions and whether concerns prompting the amendments were known during earlier campaigns demanding immediate assent.
He defended former President Akufo-Addo, arguing that he was unfairly portrayed as obstructing the legislation.
“The Family Values Bill did not fail because President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo simply refused to sign it. It became the subject of court proceedings and, by President Mahama’s own account, it had not been submitted to President Akufo-Addo for assent,” he stated.
The Minority is demanding answers to several questions, including why the bill was not presented to President Mahama in its previous form, what informed the 31 amendments, and whether the revised version still retains what they describe as the “force and value” of the original legislation.
“The Ghanaian people deserve clear answers. On a matter this sensitive, mere assertions are not enough. Political pressure is not enough. Silence is not enough,” Rev. Ntim Fordjour stressed.
The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, popularly known as the anti-LGBTQ bill, remains one of the most debated pieces of legislation in Ghana’s recent history, drawing strong opinions from religious groups, civil society organisations, human rights advocates, and political actors.