From Passage to Limbo: The uncertain future of Ghana’s anti-LGBTQ Bill

Ghana’s Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill has travelled a complex legislative and legal path since it was first passed by Parliament in February 2024.

Ghanaian culture insights

The bill, popularly referred to by some as the anti-LGBTQ+ bill, was expected to be transmitted to then-President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo for presidential assent following Parliament’s approval.

However, the President did not immediately sign the legislation into law. Instead, legal challenges were filed at the Supreme Court, placing the bill at the centre of a constitutional debate.

The cases before the apex court questioned both the substance of the bill and the process through which it was passed.

Some petitioners argued that portions of the legislation violated fundamental constitutional rights, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, and equality before the law. Others raised concerns about whether Parliament had followed the correct constitutional procedures, particularly regarding the financial implications of the bill and the use of a private members’ bill to introduce such legislation.

The legal challenges effectively stalled the final stage of the legislative process: presidential assent.

A Revised Bill Returns to Parliament

In 2025, Parliament reopened discussions on the bill and introduced amendments before passing the revised version on Friday, May 29, 2026.

The amended legislation included exemptions aimed at protecting certain professional duties.

The exemptions covered:

• Lawyers providing legal representation to LGBTQ+ persons;
  • Journalists and media organisations reporting on LGBTQ+ related matters; and
  • Medical and mental health professionals providing healthcare services or counselling.

Supporters of the amendments argued that the changes were necessary to align the legislation with constitutional protections and ensure that professionals could carry out their duties without legal uncertainty.

However, some members of the Minority in Parliament rejected the amendments, arguing that the changes suggested that the original bill contained significant weaknesses.

Despite the disagreement, the House passed the revised legislation by a majority vote.

Speaker Raises Procedural Concerns

The passage of the bill was followed by a new controversy when Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin urged the House to reconsider the legislation in order to achieve bipartisan approval.

Mr Bagbin cited Parliament’s Standing Orders, particularly Order 170(2), which requires that amendments agreed upon during the consideration stage of a bill must be properly captured and incorporated into the final version.

He argued that while Parliament had the power under Order 3 to suspend any Standing Order with the consent of the House, it did not exercise that power during the process.

According to the Speaker, the purpose of Orders 170, 171, and 172 is to ensure that Members of Parliament clearly understand the exact wording of a bill before making a final decision.

He said these provisions exist to give lawmakers adequate opportunity to review the final text and make informed legislative decisions.

The Next Constitutional Step

The Majority caucus, however, maintains that the bill should now be forwarded to the President for his consideration.

Under Ghana’s Constitution, once the President receives a bill passed by Parliament, he has seven days to notify the Speaker in writing of his decision.

The President may:

• Give assent and make the bill law;
  • Refuse assent; or
  • Refer the bill to the Council of State for advice.

Article 90 of the Constitution allows the President to seek the Council of State’s opinion where there are concerns about the constitutionality, implications, or specific provisions of a bill.

If the President refuses assent without referring the bill to the Council of State, he must, within 14 days, submit a memorandum to the Speaker outlining the areas requiring reconsideration and proposing amendments.

Parliament may then reconsider the bill, accept the recommendations, make changes, or pass it again without amendments.

If Parliament passes the bill a second time with a two-thirds majority of all Members of Parliament, the President is required under the Constitution to assent to it.

A Bill in Limbo

Despite these constitutional provisions, the future of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill remains uncertain.

The legislation is currently still before Parliament, with no clear indication of when it will either be transmitted to the President or brought back before the House for further consideration.

The bill, which has already triggered legal, political, and social debates, now sits at another procedural crossroads, waiting for Parliament to determine its next move.

As Parliament prepares to adjourn sine die on Friday, July 31, attention is now turning to the fate of the legislation. Will lawmakers reconsider the bill before the House rises, or will it be transmitted to the President for assent?