Speaker of Parliament, Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, has called on Parliament to revisit and reconsider the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2025 (Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill), citing concerns over the legislative process that led to its passage on May 29.
He stressed that his concerns were not about the objectives of the bill but rather the need to ensure strict adherence to parliamentary procedures, bipartisan consensus, and the integrity of the legislative process.
The Speaker acknowledged the broad support the bill has received from traditional authorities, religious groups and civil society organizations, describing it as legislation that touches on ‘the moral convictions, cultural values, constitutional principles and social aspirations’ of the nation.
Also read: The Front pages: Wednesday, 3rd June, 2026 (Newspapers)
In a statement delivered to the House on Tuesday, Speaker Bagbin noted that questions have emerged regarding whether the final stages of the Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill complied fully with the Standing Orders of Parliament.
“The legitimacy, credibility, and enduring authority of any law depend not only on the objective sought to be achieved, but also on the integrity of the process by which that law is enacted,” Bagbin stated.
According to him, parliamentary records show that the bill was taken through the Consideration Stage and Third Reading on the same day before being passed by the House.
He pointed to Orders 170, 171, and 172 of Parliament’s Standing Orders, which provide safeguards to ensure that amendments adopted during the Consideration Stage are properly incorporated into a bill and made available to Members before the Third Reading.
He explained that Order 172 specifically requires that at least one sitting day should elapse between the Consideration Stage and the Third Reading of a bill unless the House suspends the relevant Standing Orders.
“While the House possesses the power under Order 3 to suspend any Standing Order with the leave of the House, it did not do so,” he observed.
Mr. Bagbin said concerns have been raised about whether Members had access to the final amended version of the bill before voting on its passage.
“In the aftermath of the proceedings of the House on Friday, concerns have been raised as to whether the final text of the Bill, incorporating all amendments agreed to during the Consideration Stage, was available to Members in a manner that enabled them to fully appreciate the exact form of the final Bill before the Third Reading and ultimate passage into law,” he said.
He also expressed concern over claims that amendments adopted during the Consideration Stage did not fully reflect the unanimous recommendations contained in the committee report that initially considered the Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill.
He noted that although it is not for the Speaker to determine whether those concerns are justified, they raise important questions about parliamentary consensus and public confidence in the legislative process.
“The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2025, and its implications on the LGBTQ+ issue, are a global concern. Therefore, the eye of the world is upon this Parliament,” he stated.
“What we do here must be able to withstand any legal and constitutional challenges that are sure to come.”
The Speaker emphasized that the anti-LGBTQ+ bill had been promoted from the outset as a bipartisan initiative and argued that legislation of such national significance should command broad support across the political divide.
“It is therefore my considered view that legislation of this magnitude ought, as far as practicable, to command not merely the numerical support of a majority of Members, but also the broad confidence of the House regarding both its substance and the process by which it was adopted. What is right must be done rightly,” he said.
Speaker Bagbin subsequently appealed to Members of Parliament to revisit the bill and repass it in a manner that reflects bipartisan consensus and procedural certainty.
“I call on Parliament to rely on the provisions on motions and the conventions of this House, to go back to this historic and important Bill and repass it in a way that is truly bipartisan,” he urged.
According to him, revisiting the bill would not amount to abandoning its objectives but rather reaffirm Parliament’s commitment to constitutionalism, transparency, and due process.
“Such a course, if adopted by the House, would not be an abandonment of the Bill nor a rejection of its objectives. Rather, it would represent a reaffirmation of Parliament’s commitment to due process, fidelity to the Constitution, consensus-building, transparency, and legislative certainty,” Bagbin stated.
He expressed confidence that Members of Parliament would approach the matter with wisdom, patriotism, and a commitment to preserving the integrity of Ghana’s parliamentary democracy.