Accra, Ghana – The Minority caucus in Ghana’s Parliament has demanded explanations from the government and proponents of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill regarding significant amendments made to the legislation after its initial passage. The caucus seeks to understand why the Bill, originally passed by Parliament in February 2024, was returned with 31 amendments rather than being presented to the former President for assent in its initial form.
Questions Surrounding Bill’s Transformation
Speaking at a press conference in Parliament House on Monday, Reverend John Ntim Fordjour, the Bill’s sponsor and NPP Member of Parliament for Assin South, articulated the Minority’s core question: “What changed?” He emphasized that the caucus is not opposing the Bill itself but has two primary concerns.
First, the Minority believes the Bill appears to have lost some of its original potency and controversial elements that were central to public discourse and a prior court dispute. Second, they highlight a perceived misleading public narrative that suggested former President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo had refused to sign the Bill in its entirety.
The Public Pressure Campaign
Reverend Ntim Fordjour recalled that following the Bill’s passage on February 28, 2024, the public message was a clear and singular demand: “Sign the Bill.” He noted that the public discourse did not call for reviews, amendments, or corrections, but simply for the President’s assent.
He stated that former President Akufo-Addo faced intense public pressure, criticism, and accusations of delay, being portrayed as the sole obstacle to the Bill’s enactment. This narrative, he argued, was aggressively promoted by leading figures within the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and supporters of the Bill, including Members of Parliament like Samuel Nartey George, Emmanuel Bedzrah, Alhassan Suhuyini, and Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor.
Discrepancy in Bill Submission
The Minority’s concerns are amplified by the reported position of current President John Mahama, who has stated that the Bill passed by the Eighth Parliament was not submitted to former President Akufo-Addo for assent. Reverend Ntim Fordjour questioned the logic of directing public anger towards former President Akufo-Addo for delays if the Bill had not been formally submitted for his assent due to ongoing court proceedings.
He further questioned why the former President was blamed for delays if the Bill’s submission was pending court decisions.
Analysis of 31 Amendments
The Parliament considered 31 amendments to the Bill on May 29, 2026. These changes, according to Reverend Ntim Fordjour, included deletions, insertions, substitutions, new phrases, and entire clause alterations. He asserted that these modifications extend beyond minor corrections, fundamentally affecting the Bill’s force, weight, and legal character.
Specific examples cited include changes in Clause 1, where the phrase “holds out” was replaced with wording referring to a person who “identifies, openly represents that person or professes as.” The Minority questioned why the nation was previously told the Bill needed only a signature if the original wording was unclear.
Further amendments involved Clause 2, replacing “citizen” with “person”; Clause 3, deleting and replacing a sub-clause defining sexual intercourse; and Clause 6, removing and substituting a provision criminalizing the provision of premises for prohibited acts.
Significantly, Clause 9 introduced new exceptions for legal advice, representation, court and parliamentary submissions, academic, scientific, and medical opinions, public health information, counselling, journalism, HIV/AIDS services, and privileged communications. The Minority questioned why these protections were not acknowledged earlier if they were deemed necessary.
Concerns were also raised about amendments impacting provisions related to the subversion of family values and changes to criminal classifications, including misdemeanor and second-degree felony provisions concerning premises.
Call for Transparency and Accountability
Reverend Ntim Fordjour stressed that the issue transcends the Bill itself, touching upon the public record of former President Akufo-Addo, who was allegedly misrepresented as obstructing the Bill despite court proceedings and President Mahama’s claims of non-submission.
“This is about public trust,” he stated. “When leaders mobilise citizens around a national issue, they must be honest with them.” He criticized the perceived inconsistency of demanding a signature one day and proposing amendments the next without explanation.
The Minority has posed nine specific questions, including the reasons for the NDC’s alleged change in position, why the Bill wasn’t presented to President Mahama in the same form it was claimed Akufo-Addo refused to sign, and the specific concerns driving the 31 amendments. They are demanding clarity on what changed between the initial calls to “sign it now” and the subsequent decision to “amend it first.”
Until these questions are answered, the Minority contends that Ghanaians are justified in believing the narrative presented in 2024 was incomplete. They are calling for truth, accountability, consistency, and respect for the public’s intelligence on this sensitive matter, asserting that mere assertions or silence are insufficient.
Looking Ahead
The focus now shifts to whether the government and the Bill’s promoters will provide the detailed explanations demanded by the Minority. The public will be watching to see how these discrepancies are addressed and whether the amended Bill truly reflects the initial intent or a significant shift in approach. The resolution of these questions will be crucial for maintaining public trust in the legislative process and the politicians involved.
Leave a Reply