Private legal practitioner and activist Oliver Barker-Vormawor has challenged public claims surrounding the reintroduced Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill, arguing that the latest version differs substantially from the legislation previously passed by Parliament and submitted for presidential assent.
In a Facebook post published on Monday, June 1, Barker-Vormawor disputed assertions by John Ntim Fordjour that the new bill contains only 31 amendments and represents a diluted version of the earlier legislation.
According to him, such characterisations do not accurately reflect the extent of the revisions made to the bill. He said a technical legal review conducted by his law firm, Merton & Everett LLP, identified significant structural and substantive changes that go well beyond a simple numerical count of amendments.
Barker-Vormawor disclosed that his firm undertook a comparative analysis of the reintroduced legislation in March 2026 after it was returned to Parliament by its sponsors.
He explained that the review identified at least 27 distinct textual and structural modifications, while a broader assessment could place the number of changes as high as 64.
According to the legal practitioner, suggestions that the bill was reintroduced without substantial alterations are misleading, as the revisions affect key aspects of its structure, definitions and enforcement mechanisms.
Among the changes highlighted was the restructuring of the legislation from 20 sections in the 2024 version to 19 clauses in the reintroduced bill. He also pointed to the inclusion of an expanded explanatory memorandum of approximately 19 pages, detailing the bill’s legislative history, constitutional rationale, international law arguments and clause-by-clause explanations.
Barker-Vormawor further noted the removal of a standalone offence relating to the “subversion of family values” and its associated penalties, as well as the deletion of a broadly worded offence that criminalised aiding or facilitating such conduct.
He explained that several offence-creating provisions have been redrafted from direct criminal language into prohibition-based formulations using phrases such as “a person shall not,” while retaining many of the original penalties.
According to him, provisions dealing with procurement, detention, brothel-related offences, gross indecency, void marriages and the funding or sponsorship of prohibited activities illustrate this drafting shift.
While acknowledging that many penalties remain unchanged, Barker-Vormawor argued that the revised drafting style represents a significant legal restructuring of how offences are framed and potentially enforced.
A key aspect of his analysis focused on expanded definitions and the introduction of additional identity categories within the legislation.
He noted that the term “queer” has been added to the list of recognised identities covered by the bill, alongside newly defined categories such as “intersex,” “non-binary” and “pansexual.”
The lawyer also pointed to the introduction of broader provisions criminalising conduct or identity expressions considered inconsistent with binary gender classifications, arguing that these changes could significantly expand the scope of potential liability under the law.
Additionally, he raised concerns that the formal definition of “intersex,” when read together with certain operative provisions, could create legal vulnerabilities for some individuals depending on how the legislation is interpreted and applied.
Barker-Vormawor maintained that the reintroduced bill cannot accurately be described as either unchanged or substantially weakened. Instead, he argued that it represents a complex combination of deleted provisions, structural revisions and expanded definitions that require careful legal examination rather than a simple tally of amendments.
His comments add a new dimension to the ongoing debate over the legislation, highlighting differing interpretations of the scope and implications of the revised bill currently before Parliament.
