“My Account Was Compromised” — Afenyo-Markin Disowns Viral Anti-Gay Bill Post
Minority Leader distances himself from social media statement opposing Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2025.

- Afenyo-Markin disowns viral post opposing anti-LGBTQ+ bill, claims account compromise
- Deleted post sparked online debate over Ghana’s new family values legislation
- Bill continues to divide public opinion on rights and cultural values
Minority Leader and Member of Parliament for Effutu, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, has disowned a viral social media post attributed to him that criticised Ghana’s Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2025, describing it as fake and claiming his account had been compromised.
The post, which circulated widely on Tuesday, appeared to show the Minority Leader opposing the controversial legislation, also known as the anti-gay bill.
In the now-deleted publication, the post suggested that laws should not criminalise individuals based on their sexual orientation or personal relationships.
“A law that imprisons people for their sexual orientation or who they choose to love does not protect society. It simply selects a group of human beings and makes their existence a crime. That is a line no Parliament in the civilised world should cross,” the post read.
The statement sparked widespread reactions online, with many users sharing screenshots as debate over the recently passed bill intensified.
However, shortly after the post was removed, Afenyo-Markin issued a disclaimer on his official Facebook page, distancing himself from the content.

“Kindly disregard this post. Account was compromised,” he wrote.
Parliament passed the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2025, on May 29 after considering several amendments. The legislation seeks to criminalise LGBTQ-related activities in Ghana, with exemptions for legal practitioners, journalists, media organisations, and medical professionals acting in their official capacity.
The bill continues to generate heated public debate, with supporters arguing it protects cultural and family values, while critics say it raises concerns over human rights and freedoms.



