Controversial Anti-LGBTQ Bill Returns to Parliament for Second Reading
Bill reintroduced in Parliament reignites debate over cultural values and human rights in Ghana.
- Anti-LGBTQ bill returns for second reading after years of legislative delays.
- Proposed law seeks to criminalise same-sex relations and related advocacy.
- Supporters cite cultural values while critics raise human rights concerns.
Parliament is set to revisit Ghana’s controversial anti-LGBTQ legislation, formally known as the Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill, as it returns to the House for second reading after years of stalled legislative progress and intense public debate.
The bill, first introduced in 2021 by a bipartisan group of Members of Parliament led by Ningo-Prampram MP Sam George, seeks to criminalise same-sex relationships, LGBTQ advocacy, funding, and related activities.
Since its introduction, the bill has undergone multiple stages of parliamentary scrutiny, including public hearings involving religious leaders, traditional authorities, legal experts, civil society organisations, and human rights advocates.
While supporters argue that the legislation is necessary to protect Ghanaian cultural and family values, critics maintain that it is discriminatory and inconsistent with constitutional and international human rights standards.
The bill was first passed by Parliament in 2024 but was not assented to by then-President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, who withheld approval pending constitutional challenges at the Supreme Court.
It subsequently lapsed with the dissolution of the Eighth Parliament ahead of the 2024 general elections.
In the current Ninth Parliament, the bill has been reintroduced as a private member’s bill. Speaker Alban Bagbin has ruled that it meets the procedural and constitutional requirements for reconsideration.
The legislation has now been resubmitted for second reading, marking a renewed phase in its legislative journey.
Its reappearance in Parliament is expected to reignite nationwide debate, with religious and conservative groups advocating for its passage, while human rights organisations and civil society actors continue to oppose it on legal and rights-based grounds.
