Rev. John Ntim Fordjour flanked by other Minority MPs
The Minority in Parliament has accused the National Democratic Congress (NDC) government of significantly weakening the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill through a series of amendments, describing the changes as a betrayal of promises made to Ghanaians ahead of the 2024 elections.
Addressing a press conference in Parliament yesterday, Minority spokesperson on the Anti-LGBTQ Bill, Rev. John Ntim Fordjour, flanked by fellow Minority Members of Parliament, questioned why the NDC, which had previously championed the passage and presidential assent of the bill, had now overseen what he described as a substantial overhaul of the legislation.
“A serious question on behalf of the Ghanaian people is: what has changed?” Rev. Fordjour asked, and continued, “Have Ghanaians changed their values on LGBT issues since 2024? If nothing has changed in our value system, then the same bill that 93 percent of Ghanaians supported should be the same bill before the President today.”
He recalled that in 2024, advocates of the bill, including members of the NDC, insisted that all that remained was presidential assent by then-President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo.
According to him, the NDC campaigned on promises that a future President John Dramani Mahama would sign the bill without delay.
“They said, ‘Vote NPP out because they won’t sign the bill. Vote NDC and NDC will sign the bill.’ They did not say they would amend it, review it, delete provisions from it or redraft it before signing,” he stated.
Rev. Fordjour alleged that the current version of the bill has undergone 31 amendments, including 22 deletions and multiple insertions, making it “materially different” from the version passed by Parliament in 2024.
“You cannot subject a bill to 22 deletions and 31 insertions and still claim it is the same bill. It has been overhauled. Only the title remains the same,” he said.
The Minority maintained that it was not opposed to the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill itself, nor Parliament’s authority to legislate on the matter.
Rather, the concern, Rev. Fordjour said, was that the amended bill had lost “the force, the bite, the thrust, the deterrence and the efficacy” that characterised the original legislation.
According to him, Ghana’s Criminal Offences Act has already criminalised same-sex sexual relations for decades, and therefore the principal objective of the bill was to address what he described as the promotion, advocacy and sponsorship of LGBTQ activities.
“The mischief the bill sought to cure was not simply homosexuality, which is already addressed in existing law, but the promotion, advocacy, sponsorship and enabling of LGBTQ activities,” he argued.
Rev. Fordjour cited several amendments contained in Parliament’s Order Paper of May 29, 2026, which he claimed weakened the legislation. He pointed specifically to changes in Clause One and Clause Three, where certain wording was deleted and replaced.
He argued that replacing the phrase “holds out as” with language requiring a person to “openly identify” or “profess” a particular sexual orientation would make enforcement more difficult.
The Minority also raised concerns over a new provision introduced under Clause Nine, which they described as an “immunity clause.”
According to Rev. Fordjour, the amendment exempts certain categories of individuals and institutions from provisions prohibiting the promotion or support of activities outlawed under the bill.
He cited exemptions covering legal representation, submissions to courts and commissions, academic and medical publications, journalism, public health activities, and HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment programmes.
The Minority contended that existing constitutional protections already safeguard the rights of lawyers, journalists, medical practitioners and other professionals to carry out their lawful duties, making the exemptions unnecessary.
“If you are a journalist reporting on events, nobody is criminalising journalism. If you are a lawyer defending a client, nobody is criminalising legal representation,” Rev. Fordjour said.
“The issue is promotion and advocacy. Why create exemptions that can be used to promote LGBTQ activities under the guise of professional work?” he quizzed.
He further criticised what he described as inconsistencies within the government, pointing to previous public criticisms by some NDC figures of organisations involved in HIV/AIDS programmes and LGBTQ-related advocacy.
The Minority insisted that the original bill should be restored and presented for presidential assent without what they termed “dangerous dilutions.”
“We want the old bill,” Rev. Fordjour declared, and added, “The old bill is what has the deterrence and the teeth to deal with the concerns that led Parliament to pass it in the first place.”