Accra, Ghana – A significant procedural dispute has emerged in Ghana’s Parliament regarding the recent passage of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2025. The conflict pits Majority Leader Mahama Ayariga against Speaker Alban Bagbin, with Ayariga asserting that the bill was validly passed and beyond reconsideration, while Speaker Bagbin has called for the House to revisit its approval, citing procedural concerns and a perceived lack of demonstrated bipartisan support on the floor.
Background of the Controversy
The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, commonly referred to as the anti-LGBTQ bill, has been a highly contentious piece of legislation. Its proposed provisions aim to criminalize LGBTQ+ activities, including same-sex relationships and advocacy, and prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriage.
The bill’s journey through Parliament has been closely watched, both domestically and internationally, given its potential impact on human rights and societal norms. Prior to its final passage, the bill underwent various stages of legislative scrutiny, including committee review.
Speaker’s Concerns on Process
Speaker Alban Bagbin expressed surprise upon learning that all legislative stages of the bill had been completed by Friday, May 29. He had anticipated that the bill would still be under consideration.
Bagbin’s directive for reconsideration stems from a perceived disconnect between the committee report and the proceedings on the floor of Parliament. The committee report indicated unanimous or bipartisan support for the bill.
However, the Speaker noted that this consensus was not clearly reflected in the debates and voting that occurred during the bill’s passage. “Neither did the proceedings of that day convey the unanimity, nor bipartisan understanding upon which the bill was initially promoted and deliberated upon,” he stated.
He emphasized the importance of legislative integrity, stating, “My concern is that legislation of such profound national importance should proceed on a foundation of broad parliamentary support, bipartisan cooperation, and scrupulous adherence to the procedures established by the Constitution and the Standing Orders of Parliament.”
Majority Leader’s Defense of Passage
Majority Leader Mahama Ayariga, speaking on Joy FM’s Top Story, firmly rejected the notion that the bill was improperly passed. He maintained that Parliament adhered to its Standing Orders throughout the process.
Ayariga specifically addressed concerns about the 24-hour interval typically required between legislative stages. He explained that a procedural motion to abridge time was used to expedite the process, a common parliamentary practice.
This motion, he argued, was duly moved and approved by the First Deputy Speaker, enabling the House to proceed with the third consideration stage of the bill.
“My view is that there’s really nothing to really consider. We promised Ghanaians that we will pass a law prohibiting LGBTQ. We will pass a law prohibiting the promotion of LGBTQ. We will pass a law that does not allow us to recognize marriage by people of the same gender. We will pass a law punishing people who are luring children into the practice and also punish those who are financing and sponsoring their promotion,” Ayariga stated, underscoring the government’s commitment to fulfilling its electoral promises.
Broader Implications and Next Steps
This divergence between the Speaker and the Majority Leader introduces a new layer of complexity to the bill’s path toward becoming law. Even after parliamentary approval, legislation in Ghana requires further constitutional processes, including presidential assent.
The dispute raises questions about parliamentary procedure, the role of the Speaker, and the extent to which legislative consensus must be visibly demonstrated on the floor of the House. It also highlights the deep divisions and strong public sentiment surrounding the anti-LGBTQ bill.
The outcome of this procedural debate could set a precedent for future legislative actions, particularly concerning controversial bills that require broad support.
Moving forward, attention will be on how Parliament resolves this disagreement. The ability of the House to reconcile the Speaker’s concerns with the Majority’s assertion of valid passage will be crucial. Observers will also be watching for any potential challenges to the bill’s legitimacy based on the procedural issues raised, and how these might impact its eventual enactment or potential legal scrutiny.
Leave a Reply