Ayariga Vs. Bagbin: NOTHING TO RECONSIDER

Majority Leader Mahama Ayariga has rejected Speaker Alban Bagbin’s plea to revisit the controversial Anti-LGBTQ Bill, insisting the House validly passed the legislation and the Speaker has no power to reverse it.

“There’s nothing to really reconsider,” Ayariga declared Tuesday on Joy FM’s Top Story, pouring cold water on Bagbin’s surprise intervention. The Speaker had called for a fresh look at the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2025, claiming he was blindsided and that all legislative stages were rushed through without his knowledge on Friday, May 29.

But the Majority Leader was unyielding. He argued that the House complied fully with its Standing Orders and rejected any suggestion of impropriety.

“We promised Ghanaians that we will pass a law prohibiting LGBTQ, prohibiting its promotion, not recognising same-gender marriages, punishing those who lure children into the practice, and punishing financiers and sponsors,” Ayariga said, doubling down on the bill’s intent.

At the heart of the clash is a procedural dispute over the mandatory 24-hour interval between legislative stages. Bagbin insists the rule was ignored. Ayariga counters that a motion to “abridge time”, which is a common parliamentary tool to fast-track business, was duly moved and approved by the First Deputy Speaker, who was presiding, and that cleared the way for the third consideration stage.

“If you check the Votes and Proceedings, you will see clearly that the motion was moved,” Ayariga asserted. “No rule was breached.”

The Majority Leader further dismissed any notion that Speaker Bagbin could undo what the House had already done. “The Speaker cannot in any way reverse what has happened. What has happened has happened,” he said flatly.

The fiery exchange adds a new twist to the already explosive bill, which still faces constitutional hurdles, including possible presidential assent, before it can become law. For now, Parliament’s leadership is locked in a high-stakes tug-of-war, with the Speaker appealing for reconsideration and the Majority Leader refusing to budge.

The Speaker explained that Order 24 of the Standing Orders imposes obligations on the Speaker to uphold the honour and dignity of Parliament.

“Although I wasn’t the presiding officer that day, as the Speaker, I remain, by virtue of my office, the custodian of the institutional integrity, procedural sanctity and dignity of Parliament. In that regard, I consider it my duty to draw the attention of the House to certain concerns which have since arisen regarding the manner in which the final stages of the bill were conducted.

“The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2025, and its implications on the LGBTQ+ issue are a global concern. Therefore, the eye of the world is upon this Parliament, the Parliament of Ghana. What we do here must be able to withstand any legal and constitutional challenges that are sure to come.”

Minority Accusations

Meanwhile, Minority lawmakers have accused the National Democratic Congress (NDC) Majority of pushing through what they described as a different version of the bill from the one previously approved by Parliament and presented to former President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo for assent.

Rev. John Ntim Fordjour, Member of Parliament for Assin South, who is among the principal promoters of the bill, questioned amendments introduced into the bill, arguing that the changes undermine the original intent of the legislation.

“The promise was clear: vote for me, and I will sign the bill. They did not say the NDC would amend the bill, review it, delete provisions from it and redraft it before signing it. That is a scam, a breach of trust, deception and hypocrisy.

“The exemption they put there is that a certain category of persons, so long as they are undertaking their professional mandates, can promote LGBTQ. They are immune from the law, which is bizarre and unfair. The bill they passed had to be amended, provisions had to be deleted and redrafted, and 31 insertions were made before President Mahama would assent to it,” he accused the governing NDC during a press conference.

He continued: “They have changed it extensively, and what we have today is materially different from what was passed in 2024. You cannot subject a bill to 22 deletions and 31 insertions and still claim it is the same bill. You have overhauled it. It is only the title that remains the same.

“If the original bill was truly ready for President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo to sign, and if they sincerely believed in that bill, why was that same bill not presented to President Mahama in its original form for assent?”

John Mahama Wades In

While Majority Chief Whip Rockson Nelson Dafeamekpor defended the NDC side for doing the right thing in the passage of the bill, President Mahama indicated during an interview at Chatham House in London that Parliament still had work to do on the bill before it could be transmitted to him.

He said the bill remains subject to outstanding procedural and constitutional considerations, including concerns over quorum and how the legislation was approved in Parliament.

He outlined other constitutional options available to the President, including referring the bill to the Council of State for advice if concerns arise. Adding that, if substantial issues are identified, the President could return the bill to Parliament and specify the concerns that need to be addressed.

He explained: “Parliament has been considering this bill for some time now. It was supposed to have been passed last week. There have been a few issues raised: that there wasn’t quorum when passed, and then there were some procedural lapses in terms of its passage. Like I said when I was the opposition leader, the President has a number of options in this matter.

“It must come for assent. So once the President gets it, you go through it with the legal counsel at the Presidency because it was a private member’s bill. We will look into it and make sure everything is in order before the President assents to it. The President has another option, which is referral to the Council of State for advice. And if there are substantial issues raised, the President would return it back to Parliament, indicating where exactly the issues are.”