The Minority Caucus in Parliament has called on the government and promoters of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill to explain why legislation passed by Parliament in 2024 was not presented for presidential assent in its original form but was instead returned to Parliament and amended 31 times before being passed again.
Addressing a press conference at Parliament House on Monday, Assin South MP and sponsor of the Bill, Rev. John Ntim Fordjour, said the Minority was seeking answers to what he described as a fundamental question: “What changed?”
“We have called this press conference to ask a simple but serious question on behalf of the Ghanaian people: What changed?” he stated.
Rev. Ntim Fordjour stressed that the Minority’s concerns were not directed at the Bill itself or the lawmakers who supported its passage.
“We are not against the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill. We are not attacking MPs from either side of the House who supported, sponsored, or worked on the Bill,” he said.
According to him, the Caucus has two primary concerns. First, it believes the amended version of the legislation appears to have lost some of the provisions that made it controversial and central to the legal challenges it faced. Second, it argues that the public was led to believe former President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo had refused to sign the Bill in its entirety.
Rev. Ntim Fordjour recalled that when Parliament passed the Bill on February 28, 2024, public advocacy surrounding it focused on a single demand.
“The message to the nation was simple: ‘Sign the Bill.’ Not ‘review the Bill.’ Not ‘amend the Bill.’ Not ‘correct some provisions first.’ Simply: ‘Sign it,’” he said.
He argued that former President Akufo-Addo was subjected to significant public criticism and accused of delaying the legislation, despite ongoing legal proceedings surrounding the Bill.
According to him, that narrative was championed by several prominent National Democratic Congress (NDC) figures and supporters of the legislation, including Ningo-Prampram MP Samuel Nartey George, Ho West MP Emmanuel Bedzrah, Tamale North MP Alhassan Suhuyini and South Dayi MP Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor.
Rev. Ntim Fordjour referenced President John Mahama’s reported position that the Bill passed by the Eighth Parliament was never formally submitted to former President Akufo-Addo for assent.
“If that is the position of the current President, then why was President Akufo-Addo made the target of public anger over a Bill which, by that account, had not even been properly submitted to him?” he questioned.
He further argued that if the legislation was not presented for assent because it was the subject of court proceedings, then the former President should not have been blamed for delays in signing it.
Turning to the revised Bill passed by Parliament on May 29, 2026, Rev. Ntim Fordjour noted that lawmakers approved 31 amendments involving deletions, insertions, substitutions and modifications to existing clauses.
“These changes go beyond minor corrections and affect the force, weight and legal character of the Bill,” he said.
He cited several examples, including amendments to Clause 1, where the phrase “holds out” was replaced with language referring to a person who “identifies, openly represents that person or professes as.”
“If the original phrase was not clear enough, why was the nation told that the Bill required only a signature?” he asked.
The Assin South MP also pointed to changes in Clause 2, where the word “citizen” was replaced with “person,” and Clause 3, where an entire sub-clause relating to the definition of sexual intercourse within the context of the Bill was removed and replaced.
He further highlighted amendments to Clause 6, where provisions criminalising the provision of premises for prohibited acts were revised.
Particular concern was raised about Clause 9, which now includes exceptions covering legal advice, legal representation, court and parliamentary submissions, academic and scientific opinions, medical opinions, public health information, counselling services, journalism, HIV/AIDS services and privileged communications.
“If lawyers, journalists, academics, doctors, counsellors, public health workers and privileged communications now require protection, why was the Bill previously presented as if no such protection was required?” he asked.
Rev. Ntim Fordjour also questioned amendments relating to the alleged subversion of family values and changes to criminal classifications, including misdemeanour offences and second-degree felony provisions connected to premises.
He maintained that the issue extends beyond the legislation itself and concerns the public record of former President Akufo-Addo.
“This is about public trust. When leaders mobilise citizens around a national issue, they must be honest with them,” he said.
“You cannot tell Ghanaians yesterday that a Bill requires only a signature and then today return with amendments without explaining what happened in between.”
The Minority has consequently outlined nine questions it wants answered, including what informed the NDC’s change of position, why the Bill was not presented to President Mahama in the same form in which it was originally passed, what prompted the 31 amendments, and when concerns about the original text were first identified.
“What changed between the calls to ‘sign it now’ and the decision to ‘amend it first’?” he asked.
“Until these questions are answered, the Ghanaian people are entitled to conclude that the story they were told in 2024 is not the full story they are seeing today.”
The Minority is therefore demanding what it describes as truth, accountability, consistency and transparency from the government and the promoters of the legislation.
“On a matter of this sensitivity, mere assertions are not enough. Political pressure is not enough. Silence is not enough. The Ghanaian people deserve clear answers,” Rev. Ntim Fordjour stated.
