Featured

Revisit decision that passed anti-gay bill to ensure collective ownership devoid of partisan basis - Speaker urges MPs

Nana Konadu Agyeman Politics Jun - 02 - 2026 , 17:18 5 minutes read

The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, has appealed to Members of Parliament (MPs) to revisit the decision that passed the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2025 popularly referred to as the anti-LGBTQ+ Bill last Friday.

He said the legitimacy, credibility and enduring authority of any law depended not only on the objective sought to be achieved but also on the integrity of the process by which that law was enacted.

Legislators must, therefore, reflect on whether further consideration of the bill might be better to secure the confidence, unity, collective ownership of the bill and respect of “our faith, laws and passion”.

He said he was confident that MPs would approach the matter with wisdom, patriotism, mutual respect, and a shared commitment to the integrity of parliamentary democracy and the dignity of the House.

“Accordingly, I respectfully appeal to members to reflect carefully on the issues raised and to consider, in the larger national interest, the bipartisan character of the Bill, the unity of the House, and the nation, and the need to maintain the highest standards of procedural integrity, to revisit its decision on the third reading of the Bill to permit a reconsideration of the final text of the Bill and any amendments thereto,” he said.

Consensus-building

Addressing the House on Tuesday [June 2, 2026] on the passage of the anti-gay bill, Mr Bagbin said “Such a course, if adopted by the House, would not be an abandonment of the Bill nor a rejection of its objectives.

“Rather, it would represent a reaffirmation of Parliament's commitment to due process, fidelity to the Constitution, consensus-building, transparency and legislative certainty.

“It would ensure that any final decision taken by the House reflects not only the will of Parliament but also the fullest support of Ghanaians in the law that is ultimately enacted,” he said.

Address concerns

The Speaker said the Bill addressed matters that touched deeply on the moral convictions, cultural values, constitutional principles and social aspirations of the nation.

He said it was, therefore, not surprising that it had attracted widespread public attention and significant parliamentary interest.

He said that while the bill was through the necessary passage process, he was not the presiding officer that day.

As the Speaker, he said, remained, by virtue of his office, the custodian of the institutional integrity, procedural sanctity, and dignity of Parliament. In that regard, he said he considers it his duty to draw the attention of the House to certain concerns which had since arisen regarding the manner in which the final stages of the Bill were conducted.

Mr Bagbin said Order 20(4) of the Standing Orders required the Speaker of Parliament to uphold the honour, dignity, and sanctity of the House; to promote consensus on matters under consideration in the House; be impartial, fair, and firm in every matter in the performance of the functions of the Speaker; and to protect and preserve the rights of members.

Mr Bagbin said Order 170(2) required that amendments agreed to during the consideration stage of a bill be captured accurately, appropriately, and incorporated into the Bill.

Breach of procedure

The Speaker said that while the House possessed the power under Order 3 to suspend any Standing Order with the leave of the House, it did not do so.

He said the purpose underlying Orders 170, 171 and 172 was clear, with existing provisions existing to ensure that members were afforded a meaningful opportunity to know with certainty the exact text of a Bill on which they were called to take a final legislative decision and to permit adequate reflection before the House finally committed itself to a legislative position.

In the aftermath of the proceedings of the House on Friday [May 29, 2026], he said concerns had been raised as to whether the final text of the Bill, incorporating all amendments agreed to during the consideration stage, was available to members in a manner that enabled them to fully appreciate the exact form of the final Bill before the third reading and ultimate passage into law.

“I have also taken note of concerns expressed by some members that amendments adopted during the consideration stage did not reflect the position taken by the committee as stated in the conclusion of the committee’s report,” he said.

Avoiding a challenge to the bill

Mr Bagbin explained that neither did the proceedings of that day convey the unanimity nor the bipartisan understanding on which the Bill was initially promoted and deliberated on.

Whether or not those concerns raised on the floor and in the public discourse were ultimately justified was not for the Speaker to determine, he said.

The Speaker added that the anti-gay bill and its implications on the LGBTQ+ issue, was a global concern.

Therefore, he said the eye of the world was on Ghana’s Parliament.

“What we do here must be able to withstand any legal and constitutional challenges that are sure to come,” he said.

Do the right thing

The Bill, he added, had from its inception been presented to the nation as a bipartisan legislative initiative.

Such bi-partisan cooperation represented Parliament at its finest, he said, adding that it demonstrated to the people of Ghana that, notwithstanding political differences, MPs were capable of uniting around matters which they considered to be of national importance.

“It is therefore my considered view that, a legislation of this magnitude ought, as far as practicable, to command not merely the numerical support of a majority of members, but also the broad confidence of the House regarding both its substance and the process by which it was adopted. What is right must be done rightly,” he said.