For nearly two decades, Ghana’s political landscape has been deeply polarised over the issue of LGBTQ+ rights, with the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill emerging as one of the most contentious pieces of legislation in recent memory. Initially championed as a unifying cause by both ruling and opposition parties, religious leaders, and segments of the public, the bill was widely expected to solidify Ghana’s conservative stance on sexuality and gender identity. However, just two years after its introduction, the same legislation has instead become a major source of political division, exposing fractures within the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC) and raising tensions between domestic political priorities and Ghana’s reliance on international financial support.
A Bill That Divided Before It Divided Further
The original version of the bill, first proposed in 2019, was met with near-universal support across Ghana’s political spectrum. Backed by President John Mahama’s NDC government, the New Patriotic Party (NPP) opposition, and influential Christian and Muslim religious bodies, the legislation was framed as essential for protecting Ghana’s “family values” and traditional moral order. Public opinion polls at the time showed overwhelming support, with many Ghanaians viewing LGBTQ+ rights as incompatible with their cultural and religious beliefs.
Yet, as the bill progressed through parliament, internal disagreements emerged, revealing deeper ideological and strategic divides. The most significant schism arose after the revision and passage of a new version on May 29, 2024, which introduced critical amendments—particularly in Clause 9—that opponents argue weakened the bill’s deterrent effect.
The Core Dispute: Amendments That Undermine the Bill’s Purpose
The revised legislation includes exemptions for legal professionals, academics, journalists, public health institutions, and courtroom participants, allowing them to operate without facing penalties under the bill’s provisions. While these exemptions may appear technically necessary to prevent overreach, critics—including opposition MPs who originally co-sponsored the bill—argue that they gutted its intended impact.
John Ntim Fordjour, a prominent opposition MP and one of the bill’s key architects, told sources that the original version was designed to be “strong and uncompromising”—a law with “teeth” that would effectively criminalise LGBTQ+ advocacy and public expression. The amendments, he contends, create loopholes that could allow activists, researchers, and media outlets to bypass restrictions under the guise of professional duties.
“These exemptions may seem minor, but they are not,” Fordjour stated. “They open doors for advocacy and promotion in ways the original bill was meant to close. We spent years building consensus on a robust law, only to see it watered down to the point where it could be easily circumvented.”
Government Under Pressure: Balancing Domestic Politics and Global Realities
The NDC’s dilemma is acute. Many of its lawmakers, including Fordjour, had previously championed the bill while in opposition, but now that the party holds power, economic and diplomatic realities have forced a reevaluation.
Ghana remains heavily dependent on international funding, with IMF and World Bank loans critical to stabilising its economy amid inflation, currency devaluation, and debt concerns. Additionally, the country is actively courting foreign direct investment (FDI) and donor assistance to sustain recovery efforts. The original version of the bill had already drawn strong criticism from Western governments, human rights organisations, and development partners, who warned of potential sanctions, aid cuts, and investor withdrawal.
Economist Daniel Amateye Anim-Prempeh, a senior researcher at Policy Initiatives for Economic Development (PIED Africa), explained that the government’s approach is now driven by governance responsibility rather than opposition rhetoric.
“The Mahama administration is navigating this from a position of governing, not opposition politics,” Anim-Prempeh said. “They understand that Ghana operates within a global financial ecosystem. The potential consequences—sanctions, aid restrictions, investor uncertainty, and reputational damage—are too significant to ignore. That’s why we’re seeing efforts to soften provisions that could be perceived as overly punitive.”
Mahama’s Caution: A Bill That May Never Become Law
The political fallout intensified after President John Mahama himself raised doubts about the bill’s future. Speaking at Chatham House in London, Mahama indicated that the legislation would face legal and procedural hurdles before reaching his desk.
“Once the president gets it, you go through it because you’re not part of the discussion in parliament,” Mahama said. “The legal representative, the legal counsel in the presidency, and the Attorney General would sit on it… and make sure everything is in order before the president is advised to assent.”
He also suggested that substantial issues—particularly regarding quorum and procedural irregularities—could lead to the bill being returned to parliament for further review.
“If there are issues, substantial issues that are raised, the president would return the bill to parliament, indicating exactly what the issues are,” Mahama added.
These remarks further unsettled supporters of the bill, who now believe a second parliamentary review is inevitable. Even Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin admitted surprise at the speed of the bill’s passage, suggesting that unexpected procedural moves may have contributed to its rapid approval.
Civil Society Divided: Some Urge Caution, Others Demand Action
The controversy has also polarised civil society groups. While some, like Advocates for Christ Ghana, led by Edem Senanu, advocate for deliberation and consensus-building, others remain uncompromising in their opposition to LGBTQ+ rights.
Senanu acknowledged concerns over the exemptions in the revised bill but urged patience. “There is no need to rush this bill,” he said. “It’s a good thing that they are taking a second look at it. I also think the president might have to send it back to parliament to take a second look. We need to achieve a consensus.”
However, not all supporters of the bill share this view. Hardline advocates argue that any dilution of the original provisions undermines the moral and cultural principles the legislation was designed to uphold. They warn that international pressure could lead to further watering down if the government continues to prioritise economic stability over domestic values.
A Law That Could Never Be Passed?
The current state of the bill suggests that Ghana’s political class remains deeply divided on how to balance domestic conservative sentiment with global economic realities. While the NDC may have softened its stance to avoid backlash from donors and investors, the opposition and religious factions continue to push for a stronger, uncompromised version.
If the bill is returned to parliament for further debate, it could either:
1. Be strengthened—restoring the original provisions and risking international backlash.
2. Be further diluted—leading to weakened enforcement and public disillusionment.
3. Be abandoned entirely—due to insurmountable political and legal obstacles.
One thing is certain: Ghana’s LGBTQ+ debate has entered a new, more volatile phase, one where political alliances are shifting, international pressure is mounting, and the fate of the bill remains uncertain. As the country navigates economic instability and global scrutiny, the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill has become a microcosm of Ghana’s broader challenges—where domestic values clash with global expectations, and unity gives way to division.