The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, has stressed that MPs can still reexamine the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2025, commonly called the Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill, even though it has already been approved.
He explained that the House can file a motion to reverse its previous position on the Bill. His remarks came after the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill 2025 went through, after which he called for it to be reconsidered.
Addressing a delegation from the Supreme Court 150th Anniversary Planning Committee on Thursday, June 11, Hon. Bagbin rejected suggestions that Parliament was deadlocked over the Bill.
“The recent debate where some lawyers came out strongly to say that by the Constitution, once a law is passed on the floor, Parliament is functus officio. It’s not the law. Because we have what we call a passage process before you send it to the President for assent.
He added, “And that process gives the opportunity for Parliament to reflect on what it has passed. And that is why in the Constitution, there is no time limit given to Parliament after passage to submit to the President for assent. And on many occasions, we usually identify some inconsistencies or errors. And then we go back to the House, where they refer to us as the second reconsideration stage.
“…We use the process for recession, a motion of recession to rescind the decision of having read the bill a third time. And then use that to do it. So, it’s really not the law that once the Speaker says the bill is read a third time and passed, Parliament is functus officio.”
His remarks follow his directive for Parliament to review the already approved Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2025, after discussions with House leadership to forge wider agreement on the law.
On Tuesday, June 2, the Speaker urged deeper talks between the Majority and Minority leaders, expressing concern about how the bill was passed.Bagbin said he was taken aback that the bill was fully adopted on Friday, May 29, stating he had anticipated Parliament would only start the consideration phase before adjourning.
He insisted that, given its public sensitivity and the nationwide discussion it has sparked, the bill demands wider dialogue and unity among parties.
