Ghana’s parliament has again passed one of Africa’s most draconian anti-LGBTQ bills – but the chaotic circumstances of its passage have left even some of its supporters calling for it to be recalled.
The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, which would make identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer punishable by up to three years in prison and proposes a “duty to report” prohibited acts to police, was passed on 29 May 2026, having bypassed the standard waiting period of one sitting day before a final reading.
The speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, who was absent on the day, later said he was surprised by its passage, despite having long championed the legislation and encouraged its swift consideration.
An earlier version of the anti-LGBTQ+ bill was introduced in 2021 and passed by Parliament in 2024, but was not signed into law by former president Nana Akufo-Addo before he left office. Akufo-Addo had cited multiple Supreme Court challenges as a reason for not giving it assent, though Ghana’s Finance Ministry had also issued a stark warning that enacting the bill could cost the country $3.8bn in World Bank funding.
Last week’s parliamentary vote over the latest version of the bill, which was reintroduced in February 2025, has also been clouded by concerns over quorum. Much like the 2024 version, this bill’s passage appeared to flout rules requiring at least half of Ghana’s 276 MPs to be present for a decision of that nature.
Who the bill targets
The bill expands existing colonial-era laws criminalising gay sex, with provisions that define and criminalise queer people and their allies.
One of its harshest sections targets people who advocate for, fund or indirectly support LGBTQ rights – wording that pro-queer NGOs and public health groups say is aimed squarely at their work. Breaching this provision could lead to a prison sentence of between five and ten years.
It also places all people within Ghana’s jurisdiction under a duty to not only report queer people and their advocates, but to promote the bill’s core provisions in homes, schools, religious institutions and the media.
The potential impact goes beyond individuals. Sponsors of the bill have often singled out pro-queer NGOs and organisations providing public health support to LGBTQ people, including UNFPA (the United Nations sexual and reproductive health agency) and the Ghana AIDS Commission, accusing them of supporting LGBTQ “activities” through their work.
During stakeholder engagements in April 2026, Sam George, one of the bill’s sponsors, accused the Ghana AIDS Commission of promoting gay sex by distributing lubricants. Like the media outlets that reported his comments, George ignored experts’ explanations of the epidemiological basis for such interventions.
That framing has led backers of the bill to lump public health bodies, rights organisations and other civil society groups under the section banning the “propaganda of, promotion and advocacy” for queer people.
What changed from the last version
Some of the risks to public health bodies, journalists and rights institutions have been narrowed by amendments.
Under the previous version of the law, groups such as the Ghana AIDS Commission, journalists whose reporting may advocate for queer communities, and the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice, which receives reports of abuses against LGBTQ people, could have been prosecuted or muzzled. But eight exemptions were added to allow certain bodies and professionals to continue their work.
Those exemptions cover legal representation, court submissions, academic research, communications by health organisations, professional medical services, journalism, public health functions and privileged communications under Ghana’s Evidence Act.
Other changes include broadening the duty to promote so-called family values from citizens to all people within Ghana’s jurisdiction; introducing “dignified regard” for intersex persons; adding new definitions for members of queer communities; and setting a 12-month deadline for a Legislative Instrument to aid implementation.
That deadline could become another test of the government’s commitment. The ministries responsible for health and social protection have been tasked with developing the instrument, but some MPs unsuccessfully pushed for the Ministry of Justice to also be involved – suggesting a lack of confidence in the assigned ministries.
Partisan theatre
The bill’s passage has exposed a series of partisan reversals.
When the National Democratic Congress (NDC) was in opposition, it pushed for the harshest version of the bill, resisting any exemptions that could allow organisations to continue work, which it deemed to be “promotion and advocacy” for queer people. At the time, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, then leader of the governing New Patriotic Party (NPP) caucus, warned against this, saying that some elements of the bill could fail constitutional tests and noted the vulnerability of queer people.
Now the roles have reversed. Since President John Mahama and his NDC returned to power at the December 2024 election, the NDC leadership has inserted protection for journalists, legal representatives and public health reasons into the draft, while Afenyo-Markin and other NPP MPs have resisted these amendments. The dispute has led Bagbin, the speaker, to suggest the bill may need to be recalled for further bipartisan consideration.
The legislation began as a private member’s motion sponsored by a small group of MPs. But the lawmakers backing it have shifted since the NDC took office, with some original sponsors distancing themselves while new NPP legislators have joined.
Alhassan Suhuyini, an NDC MP and one of the bill’s original sponsors, told Parliament he has stepped away because “the motive of the lead sponsors [on the NPP side] was not to pass this bill but to do propaganda.”
John Ntim Fordjour, one of the bill’s sponsors, told openDemocracy that the way it passed was an embarrassment. He was upset that the bill had been watered down with exemptions that would take targets off the backs of groups like the UNFPA.
“We have passed a bill that is not going to be fit for purpose,” he said. “The best way forward is for us to recall the faulty bill that has been passed.”
“We have passed a bill that is not going to be fit for purpose.”
The Christian Council of Ghana, which had previously pushed for the bill’s quick passage, has also backed a recall. Its general secretary, reverend Cyril Fayose, told openDemocracy he was concerned about what the appearance of division between the NPP and NDC would mean for the bill’s credibility.
“If there is even one person who is not satisfied and is a representative of the people, then we must go back and make sure everyone is on board,” he said.
The Family Values connection
The timing of the vote has raised further questions. The bill passed only days before Ghana hosted the Africa Inter-Parliamentary Conference on Family Values, bringing together representatives from more than 20 countries and groups.
The conference was previously hosted by Uganda, which also passed an anti-LGBTQ bill days before the first gathering in 2023. Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni hosted attendees at the state house and gave the event overt backing.
Ghana has not seen the same level of executive involvement. Mahama was expected to attend the conference opening as a guest of honour, but was out of the country on a work trip. His chief of staff represented him instead.
The event’s venue also changed twice within a month. It was first scheduled for the Four Points by Sheraton Hotel, under the Marriott Bonvoy brand. Rights activists in Ghana targeted the hotel with complaint emails and called for ‘review bombs’ – in which people leave negative online reviews – and the venue was later changed. openDemocracy asked the hotel why it did not host the conference, but a representative declined to comment.
Accra Ridge Church, an interdenominational church near Parliament House, was then advertised as the replacement, before it was confirmed that the event would be held in Parliament. A parliamentary spokesperson told openDemocracy he did not know why the venue had changed. On 1 June, Bagbin told the press that Parliament was the most appropriate venue.
The bill also sits within a broader transnational “family values” agenda. Its sponsors have invoked anti-LGBTQ legislation elsewhere in Africa, particularly Uganda, to argue that Ghana’s version should be more draconian towards media, individuals and institutions supporting queer people.
Some of the rhetoric around the bill also mirrors talking points from the US religious right. Sharon Slater of Family Watch International, a US Christian lobbying group that is classified as an anti-LGBTIQ+ hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, questioned comprehensive sex education in Ghana and the role of the UNFPA during a 2019 meeting with parliamentary leaders and clergy. But the extent of recent Western anti-rights involvement around this latest vote remains unclear.
What will Mahama do?
The question now is what Mahama will do. He has wavered on the bill for years, mostly affirming his personal Christian beliefs on gender and marriage when pressed during his successful campaign.
A month after taking office at the start of 2025, he told Bloomberg TV he was more interested in teaching children about the family values the bill’s supporters say they want to preserve, while avoiding a direct answer on whether he would sign it.
On 18 November 2025, during an engagement with clergy, Mahama said for the first time that he would sign the bill. But by March 2026, after Lincoln University in Pennsylvania cancelled plans to award him an honorary doctorate, citing the legislation, he appeared to soften his stance. Days later, while meeting civil society groups, he said the bill was not a priority.
On 1 June, responding to the bill’s passage during an engagement in the UK, Mahama questioned the procedural lapses around the vote, including the apparent lack of quorum. He said there was “still quite a while to go before that bill becomes law”.
Even with amendments removing some of the most obvious risks to public health work, lawyer and legal analyst Amanda Clinton told openDemocracy that fundamental constitutional questions remain.
“Whether the amendments make it easier for Mahama to assent is ultimately a political and constitutional question,” she said. “They may provide greater comfort from a legal drafting perspective, but the president must still weigh constitutional considerations, Ghana’s international obligations, social expectations, governance concerns and potential economic implications.”
Rights groups have already told openDemocracy they are considering legal action. For queer Ghanaians and the organisations that support them, the bill’s contested passage may have created uncertainty for politicians – but the danger remains immediate.
