Questions over quorum and effectiveness as Ghana’s Anti-LGBTQ+ bill sparks fresh debates

Private legal practitioner Osagyefo Oliver Barker-Vormawor has raised fresh questions over the procedural validity of Parliament’s passage of Ghana’s controversial Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill, claiming the legislation may have been approved without the constitutionally required quorum.

In a Facebook post that has since circulated widely on social media, Barker-Vormawor alleged that only 34 Members of Parliament were present when the bill was approved. “Turns out the Anti-LGBTQ bill was passed without a quorum. Only 34 MPs? Hmmm,” he wrote, adding: “Over to the President. Cease and desist letter incoming?”

The legislation, which seeks to criminalise LGBTQ+ activities and related advocacy, was reportedly passed with a number of amendments introduced at the committee stage. Among the revisions are provisions exempting certain categories of professionals and institutions from sanctions including lawyers providing legal representation to individuals identified as LGBTQ+, journalists and media organisations reporting on the issue, and medical professionals offering healthcare, counselling and psychological support.

The amendments were introduced following concerns raised during parliamentary deliberations and stakeholder engagements regarding the bill’s potential implications for professional practice, human rights, and access to essential services.

The revised version faced strong opposition from the Minority Caucus, which argued that the exemptions highlighted fundamental weaknesses in the original draft legislation. Minority members contended that the changes raised questions about consistency, legal clarity and the potential enforceability of the proposed law.

On the same matter of the newly passed bill, Oxford Osei Bonsu, a lecturer at the GIMPA Law School, has urged policymakers and the public to shift focus toward whether newly enacted legislation can effectively address the problems it seeks to solve.

Speaking on The Forum on Asaase Radio on Saturday, Osei Bonsu warned against turning legal reforms into political contests.

“The fact that you have passed a law doesn’t mean that the law is going to work,” he said, questioning what practical problems lawmakers intended to address. “What problem are we addressing with the passage of the law? Would this be able to solve the problem?”

The legal scholar also stressed the importance of clearly explaining amendments so the public understands their purpose and impact. He cautioned against interpretations that could undermine constitutional rights, citing concerns over suggestions that persons accused of offences under the law could be denied legal representation.

“If anybody could interpret a provision like that, then it means that we are at a wrong point,” he said.

Osei Bonsu noted that legislative changes are a normal part of governance and should not automatically be viewed with suspicion, provided they continue to serve the objectives for which the law was enacted. He said the key test of the legislation would be whether it retains provisions to punish those found engaging in prohibited practices and those deemed to be promoting them.

“If we have those things spelled out, then we are good to go,” he said.