Speaker Bagbin orders re-introduction of Anti-LGBTQ Bill

The Parliament is once again set to confront one of its most polarising legislative battles after Speaker Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin directed the Business Committee to schedule the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2025 — widely known as the Anti-LGBTQ Bill — for formal consideration by the House.

The decision marks the official revival of a controversial piece of legislation that dominated national discourse in the Eighth Parliament but collapsed procedurally after failing to receive presidential assent.

Delivering his ruling on the floor of Parliament on Tuesday, February 10, Bagbin announced that the bill had satisfied all constitutional and procedural requirements for reintroduction under the Standing Orders of the House.

He explained that under Standing Order 187(2), the Speaker is constitutionally required to communicate to Parliament his opinion on whether a private member’s bill complies with Article 108 of the 1992 Constitution, which restricts Parliament from introducing bills that impose charges on the Consolidated Fund without executive approval.

After reviewing the attached processes and documentation, the Speaker concluded that the bill met the necessary legal and procedural thresholds.

The bill, originally introduced in August 2021 as the Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2021, was one of the most contentious pieces of legislation in recent parliamentary history.

It generated intense national and international debate, drawing strong support from religious bodies, traditional leaders, and conservative groups, while also attracting criticism from human rights organisations, civil society groups, and sections of the international community.

The Eighth Parliament passed the bill on February 28, 2024. Still, it never became law after the then-President failed to assent to it due to legal disputes before the dissolution of Parliament, causing the legislation to lapse automatically.

Following the inauguration of the Ninth Parliament, Speaker Bagbin initiated a formal legal and institutional review process to determine whether the bill could be reintroduced.

On January 28, 2025, the legislation was referred to the Office of the Attorney-General and the Ministry of Justice for assessment.

Their observations, submitted on April 7, 2025, were forwarded to the bill’s sponsors for consideration, forming the legal foundation for the reintroduction process.

Subsequently, nine Members of Parliament formally signalled their intention to bring the bill back before the House.

They are Sam Nartey George, Emmanuel Kwesi Bedzrah, Rev. John Ntim Fordjour, Helen Ntoso, Vincent Ekow Assafuah, Alhassan Tampuli Sulemana, Rita Naa Odoley Sowah, Mahama Tiah Abdul-Kabiru, and Anthony Mmieh — a bipartisan group drawn from both sides of the political divide, reflecting the cross-party nature of support for the bill.

In line with parliamentary procedure, a legal opinion dated March 7, 2025, and a fiscal impact analysis under Section 101(1) of the Public Financial Management Act, 2016 (Act 921), were submitted to the Speaker.

The Committee on Private Members’ Bills and Private Members’ Motions subsequently reviewed the legislation and unanimously advised that it could be introduced in the House.

According to Speaker Bagbin, the committee found that the bill maintained its core objectives and underlying principles and did not violate any provisions of the Constitution, particularly Articles 106 and 108.

Crucially, the committee also concluded that the bill does not impose any form of taxation or financial charge on the Consolidated Fund or any other public funds of Ghana.

After reviewing the committee’s report, the Speaker formally ruled that the bill fully complies with both the Constitution and Parliament’s Standing Orders, clearing the way for its reintroduction and debate in the Ninth Parliament.

His directive to the Business Committee to schedule the bill for consideration effectively places the controversial legislation back on the parliamentary agenda.

The development reopens a deeply sensitive national conversation about morality, culture, human rights, constitutional freedoms, and the international obligations.

While supporters of the bill frame it as a necessary legal instrument to protect family values, cultural norms, and societal morality, critics argue that it threatens fundamental human rights and could expose the country to diplomatic and economic consequences.

With the bill now officially cleared procedurally, Parliament is set for another round of intense debate, public scrutiny, and political contestation, as Ghana revisits one of the most divisive legislative proposals in its democratic history — a bill whose impact extends beyond lawmaking into culture, identity, rights, and the country’s place in the global human rights discourse.