For nearly two decades, Ghana’s political landscape has been shaped by a relentless debate over LGBTQ+ rights, culminating in the introduction of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill—a legislation that once seemed to transcend partisan divides. Backed by both the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC) and opposition parties, endorsed by influential religious and Muslim groups, and championed by a significant portion of the public, the bill was widely anticipated as a landmark social policy. However, as the legislation nears finalisation, it has instead become a fracturing force, exposing deep-seated tensions between domestic political ambitions, international obligations, and the evolving expectations of Ghana’s diverse constituencies.
A Bill That Once United, Now Divides
Originally drafted to criminalise LGBTQ+ activities and reinforce traditional family values, the bill was initially presented as a unifying cause. Political leaders from across the spectrum—including former President John Mahama—publicly supported its passage, framing it as a moral imperative to protect Ghana’s cultural heritage. Religious leaders, particularly within the Christian Council of Ghana and Islamic organisations, rallied behind the legislation, arguing that it was necessary to safeguard societal norms against perceived Western influences.
Yet, as the bill progressed through parliamentary stages, its reception has radically shifted. The revised version, passed on May 29, 2024, has sparked acute backlash from some of its original supporters, who now accuse the government of watering down its intended impact. The most contentious changes were introduced in Clause 9, which introduced exemptions for:
– Legal practitioners representing accused individuals in LGBTQ+ related cases.
– Academics conducting scientific research on sexual orientation and gender identity.
– Journalists reporting on LGBTQ+ issues in the course of their duties.
– Public health institutions addressing HIV/AIDS and other health concerns.
– Individuals making submissions before courts or tribunals.
Opposition lawmakers, including John Ntim Fordjour, a co-sponsor of the original bill, have vehemently criticised these amendments, arguing that they undermine the legislation’s deterrent effect. In an interview with a leading Ghanaian publication, Fordjour stated:
“The original bill was the one with teeth—it was designed to be enforceable. The current version introduces loopholes that could be exploited to circumvent its intent. We spent years building consensus on a strong bill, only to see it weakened in ways that could render it ineffective.”
His concerns reflect a broader sentiment among some lawmakers and civil society groups that the softened provisions risk allowing LGBTQ+ advocacy to persist under legal or institutional cover. Critics argue that the exemptions, while seemingly technical, fundamentally alter the bill’s purpose by creating pathways for indirect promotion of LGBTQ+ rights.
Government Under Pressure: Balancing Domestic and International Realities
The NDC’s dilemma is acute. The party’s lawmakers, many of whom championed the bill while in opposition, now face internal pressure to restore its original strength. However, the government is also constrained by Ghana’s economic realities—a country that remains heavily dependent on international financial support, including loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, as well as foreign direct investment (FDI) and donor funding.
Economist Daniel Amateye Anim-Prempeh, a senior researcher at Policy Initiatives for Economic Development (PIED Africa), highlights the geopolitical risks associated with the bill. He explains:
“The Mahama administration is now operating from a position of governance rather than opposition politics. Government officials are acutely aware of Ghana’s place in the global financial ecosystem. The original bill faced strong criticism from Western governments, human rights organisations, and development partners—many of whom warned of potential aid restrictions, investor uncertainty, and reputational damage. The amendments reflect an attempt to mitigate these risks.”
This international backlash has been well-documented. Western governments, including the United States and European Union, have expressed concerns that the bill could violate Ghana’s human rights obligations under international treaties. Human rights groups, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have warned that the legislation could encourage discrimination, violence, and arbitrary arrests against LGBTQ+ individuals.
For Ghana, which has been struggling with economic instability, the stakes are high. The country’s debt-to-GDP ratio remains a major concern, and any disruption to foreign aid or investor confidence could further destabilise its recovery. The government’s cautious approach—as seen in President Mahama’s recent remarks—reflects this delicate balancing act.
President Mahama’s Stance: A Bill in Limbo
In a high-profile address at Chatham House in London, President Mahama clarified the bill’s future, suggesting that its passage is far from guaranteed. He indicated that the legislation would undergo further legal scrutiny before his assent, stating:
“Once the president receives the bill, it goes through a thorough review. The legal counsel in the presidency, the Attorney General, and other legal representatives will examine it to ensure compliance with constitutional and international obligations before any decision is made.”
Mahama also raised procedural concerns, including quorum issues and potential parliamentary irregularities in the bill’s passage. He suggested that if substantial legal or procedural flaws are identified, the bill could be returned to parliament for further debate.
This unexpected shift has left many observers—and even some lawmakers—caught off guard. Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin admitted that the speed of the bill’s passage surprised him, stating:
“When the bill was approved on Friday, I was as surprised as anyone. I had expected a more gradual consideration process. The fact that it was rushed through raises questions about its final form.”
Civil Society Divided: Between Urgency and Caution
The reaction from Ghanaian civil society has been mixed. While some groups, such as Advocates for Christ Ghana, led by Edem Senanu, have called for a slower, more deliberative approach, others remain unwavering in their support for the bill’s original intent.
Senanu, in a recent statement, urged patience, arguing that the bill’s final form requires careful review:
“There is no need to rush this bill. The fact that the president and legal experts are taking a second look is a positive development. If the exemptions in the current version are indeed as concerning as they appear, then a return to parliament may be necessary to achieve a true consensus.”
However, not all supporters of the bill are willing to compromise. Religious leaders and conservative activists have demanded full enforcement, arguing that any watering down would betray the public’s mandate. They point to public opinion polls showing strong majority support for the legislation, particularly in rural and conservative regions.
The Path Forward: A Bill at a Crossroads
As Ghana’s political elite grapples with the anti-LGBTQ bill, several key questions remain unanswered:
- Will the government restore the original bill’s provisions, or will it finalise the amended version despite opposition?
- How will international donors and investors react to the bill’s final form?
- Will the bill’s passage lead to further political polarisation, or could it unify Ghana’s conservative base behind a shared moral cause?
- What role will the judiciary play in interpreting the bill’s exemptions and ensuring its constitutional validity?
One thing is certain: Ghana’s political landscape is at a critical juncture. The anti-LGBTQ bill, once a unifying force, has now become a symbol of the country’s deeper divisions—between traditional values and global pressures, governance responsibility and political rhetoric, and domestic expectations versus international realities.
For now, the bill remains in limbo, its fate hanging on legal scrutiny, political will, and the delicate balance between Ghana’s sovereignty and its global obligations. The coming months will determine whether it becomes a landmark law or a contentious failure—one that further deepens Ghana’s social and political fractures.