The Chairman of Advocates for Christ, Edem Senanu, has expressed concern over procedural and drafting issues surrounding the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, questioning how such matters emerged after Parliament had already passed the legislation.
Speaking on JoyNews’ PM Express on Tuesday, Mr Senanu said the bill’s passage for a second time demonstrated that a broad national consensus on the issue remains intact.
According to him, many observers expected the legislation to encounter significant challenges after it was required to restart the legislative process following the expiration of the previous Parliament. However, its successful passage again indicates widespread support.
“The positive aspect is that if, for a second time, we have arrived at passing the bill, it tells you that the unanimity has always been there,” he said.
“After the first time, having to start the whole process again, one would think that it would get stuck somewhere. But to the extent that they completed the same thing a second time, this tells you that there is a consensus in general on the issue.”
Despite acknowledging the apparent consensus, Mr Senanu said he was troubled by questions now being raised regarding parliamentary procedure, including concerns over quorum requirements and compliance with legislative processes.
“The part that is questionable for me is, how come the House of procedures and records could get it wrong? How would they not recognise that certain steps had not been followed, or that the quorum was not there?” he asked.
“That raises alarms for me.”
The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill has recently returned to the centre of public debate amid concerns over parliamentary procedures and discussions among political leaders about the next steps before it can receive presidential assent.
Beyond procedural concerns, Mr Senanu also raised issues with aspects of the bill’s content, particularly provisions relating to exemptions.
“I took a look at the new version, and especially the exemptions. There is one in particular that gets me worried,” he stated.
He argued that even if the bill had already been transmitted to the President, there would still have been a need for further scrutiny of certain sections.
“So already in my mind, even if it had gone on to the President, the likelihood is that we would have appealed to the President to consider, looking at Article 106, at least one of those exemptions, particularly regarding the number of mental organisations and related matters, which is not tight,” he said.
According to Mr Senanu, the current wording of some provisions could create legal ambiguities and leave room for unintended interpretations.
“It provides a lacuna for the kind of information we do not want to be out there,” he noted.
He stressed that Parliament would need to clarify such provisions to prevent future legal disputes and ensure the legislation is enforceable.
“We would still have required that this come back to Parliament to be very clear. Let’s qualify the type of information they are talking about, so that when there is a case and we go to court, we can be clear whether there is intent to do something that breaches the law or not,” he explained.
While expressing confidence that the bill remains close to completion, Mr Senanu urged both Parliament and the Presidency to address the outstanding concerns without delay.
“It’s only between Parliament and the President. If there are a few things they need to resolve, they need to get their house in order, resolve them, and move on,” he said.
He maintained that many of the issues currently being discussed should have been identified and resolved much earlier in the legislative process.
“The issues coming up are things that ideally should not even arise, whether it is a quorum issue, whether it is a process issue, or whether it is exemptions that have not been properly crafted and are providing loopholes. These are concerns that we will need to address,” he added.
