Ghana’s LGBTQ Bill: The Stalled Legislation, Political Assurances, and Path Forward

The future of Ghana’s highly contentious Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill—commonly known as the LGBTQ bill—is once again a focal point of national political discourse. A key architect of the legislation has made a striking declaration: should a future presidency led by former President John Dramani Mahama materialize, the bill’s signing into law is all but certain. This statement, rich with political symbolism (“My pen is ready. The ink is dripping”), reframes the entire debate around a single constitutional hinge point: presidential assent. This article provides a comprehensive, SEO-optimized, and pedagogically structured examination of this development, the bill’s tumultuous journey, its constitutional standing, and what it means for Ghana’s democratic process and human rights landscape.

Introduction: The Pen That Holds the Balance

In a candid interview on Joy News’ PM Express, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, the Majority Chief Whip and Member of Parliament for South Dayi, shifted the narrative surrounding Ghana’s anti-LGBTQ legislation. He asserted that the primary obstacle to the bill becoming law was not parliamentary opposition but the refusal of then-President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo to grant presidential assent. Framing the bill as having already completed its parliamentary journey and effectively become an “Act of Parliament pending assent,” he raised profound constitutional questions about its demise. His prognosis for a future Mahama administration is unequivocal: the bill would be signed immediately upon presentation. This declaration injects the 2024 Ghanaian presidential election with a new, highly charged dimension, positioning the LGBTQ bill’s fate as a direct function of the executive branch’s composition. This analysis will deconstruct these claims, trace the bill’s history, explain the Ghanaian legislative process, and explore the multifaceted implications—legal, political, and social—of this standoff.

Key Points: What You Need to Know

• Core Claim: Majority Chief Whip Dafeamekpor states former President Mahama is unequivocally prepared to sign the LGBTQ bill into law if it is reintroduced and passed by Parliament under his presidency.
• Identified Bottleneck: The bill’s failure to become law in the previous parliamentary cycle is attributed solely to the incumbent President’s (Nana Akufo-Addo) withholding of assent, not a lack of parliamentary support.
• Constitutional Argument: Dafeamekpor contends the bill had already “matured into an Act of Parliament” upon passage, making its subsequent lapse legally anomalous and a matter that should have been referred to the Supreme Court.
• Political Assurance: The legislator claims extensive engagement with faith-based institutions (both Christian and Muslim) has occurred to secure support and provide reassurances about the bill’s reintroduction and passage.
• Future Certainty: The decisive factor, according to Dafeamekpor, is the certainty of presidential cooperation, which was absent in the previous administration but is promised in a potential future one.
• Ongoing Controversy: The bill remains a lightning rod for national debate, pitting powerful religious groups and traditionalists against human rights advocates and international bodies concerned about fundamental freedoms.

Background: The Long and Winding Road of the LGBTQ Bill

Origins and Parliamentary Passage

The Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill was first introduced in Parliament in 2021. Spearheaded by a cross-section of MPs, most notably Sam George (Ningo-Prampram) and Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, the bill sought to criminalize the advocacy, promotion, and public identification with LGBTQ+ rights. Its provisions included up to five years imprisonment for individuals identifying as LGBTQ+ and harsher penalties for “promoters” and organizations. The bill’s proponents framed it as a defense of Ghanaian culture, values, and family structures against perceived foreign influences. After extensive public hearings and heated debates, the bill was passed by Parliament in July 2023, following a series of votes that demonstrated a clear majority in favor.

The Presidential Assent Impasse

Under the 1992 Constitution of Ghana (Article 106), a bill passed by Parliament does not become law until it receives the President’s assent. The President has two options: sign the bill or return it to Parliament with a message explaining the reasons for refusal (a form of veto). If the President withholds assent, Parliament can override the veto with a two-thirds majority of all its members. Following the parliamentary passage, the bill was transmitted to the presidency. In late 2023, President Akufo-Addo announced he would not assent to the bill. His stated reasons were multifaceted, including concerns about potential constitutional challenges, the bill’s compliance with international human rights obligations, and the possibility of it being struck down by the courts. This action effectively stalled the legislation, leaving it in a state of legal limbo.

The Legal State of “Pending Assent”

This is where the constitutional debate ignites. Dafeamekpor’s assertion that the bill had become an “Act of Parliament” upon passage is a specific legal interpretation. In strict procedural terms, a bill is a “bill” until all constitutional steps are completed. Assent is a mandatory final step. However, proponents argue that the exhaustive parliamentary process—including committee scrutiny, public input, and multiple readings—constitutes a completed legislative act, and the presidential withholding creates an unprecedented constitutional puzzle. They ask: if a President refuses assent on a bill that has completed its parliamentary life, does the bill die with that Parliament, or does its status require judicial interpretation? This question was never adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Ghana, as Dafeamekpor notes the leadership opted against litigation, citing costs and resource constraints after a lengthy legislative battle.

Analysis: Deconstructing the Claims and Constitutional Landscape

The “Ready Pen” Declaration: Politics or Policy?

Dafeamekpor’s vivid metaphor—”My pen is in a position, ink is dripping to assent”—is a powerful political signal. It serves multiple purposes. First, it draws a stark contrast between the current administration and a potential future one, making the presidential election a referendum on this specific piece of legislation. Second, it attempts to provide certainty to the bill’s base of supporters (notably faith-based organizations) who were disappointed by the previous stall. Third, it re-frames the narrative from one of parliamentary achievement (which they claim was complete) to one of executive obstruction. The statement’s veracity hinges on the hypothetical: if Mahama, who has been critical of LGBTQ+ advocacy in the past, were to win the 2024 election and form a government, would he indeed sign the bill? His public record suggests alignment, but a formal commitment would be required. The statement is, therefore, a calculated political promise aimed at consolidating support.

The Separation of Powers Tension

The situation highlights the delicate separation of powers in Ghana’s constitutional democracy. Parliament exercised its legislative power to the fullest. The President exercised his executive prerogative to withhold assent. This creates a classic deadlock. Dafeamekpor’s argument that the bill should have been taken to the Supreme Court touches on the doctrine of justiciability. The Court could, in theory, be asked to interpret whether a President can indefinitely frustrate a bill that has completed its parliamentary phase, or if there are implied limits. However, courts are generally reluctant to compel the President to act, respecting the independence of the executive. The practical reality, as Dafeamekpor admitted, is that litigation is a costly, time-consuming endeavor with an uncertain outcome, a significant factor for legislators who have already expended immense political capital.

International Law vs. Domestic Sovereignty

A critical subtext to the entire debate is the tension between domestic cultural sovereignty and international human rights law. The bill has been widely condemned by UN human rights experts, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and Western governments as a violation of fundamental rights to freedom of association, expression, and non-discrimination. President Akufo-Addo’s reluctance was reportedly influenced by these concerns and the potential for Ghana to face diplomatic or economic repercussions. The proponents, however, frame the issue as one of cultural imperialism, arguing that Ghana has the sovereign right to legislate in accordance with its own social norms and religious values. This clash represents a broader global trend where post-colonial nations assert cultural exception to international human rights norms, particularly concerning sexuality and gender.

Practical Advice: Navigating the Legislative and Civic Landscape

For citizens, civil society organizations, and observers, this evolving situation demands a clear understanding of processes and avenues for engagement.

For Supporters and Opponents of the Bill

• Monitor the Parliamentary Calendar: The bill must be formally reintroduced in a new Parliament (either the current one after a recess or the next one post-2024 elections). Tracking its first reading is the key procedural milestone.
• Engage Your MP: Constituency lobbying remains powerful. Write, call, or meet with your Member of Parliament to express your views on the bill, regardless of your position. Understand their stated stance.
• Participate in Public Consultations: Parliament typically holds public hearings on major bills. Submitting memoranda, appearing before committees, and participating in organized civil society forums are formal channels to influence the debate.
• Understand the Legal Thresholds: Know the constitutional requirements: a simple majority for passage in Parliament, and the President’s assent or a two-thirds parliamentary override to make it law. The 2024 election outcome is the single biggest variable for the assent stage.

For Media and Analysts

• Precision in Language: Clearly distinguish between a “bill,” an “Act of Parliament,” and “law.” A bill is not an act until all constitutional steps, including assent, are complete. Avoid phrasing that implies the bill was already law.
• Contextualize Political Statements: Statements like “the pen is ready” are political rhetoric. Analyze them against the candidate’s/politician’s history, party manifesto positions, and the practical realities of coalition-building in government.
• Highlight the Constitutional Mechanism: Explain the veto and override process clearly. The public discourse often centers on the President’s power but overlooks Parliament’s ability to override, a high bar but a real one.

FAQ: Addressing Common Questions

Q1: What exactly is “presidential assent” in Ghana?

A: Presidential assent is the final executive step in Ghana’s law-making process, mandated by Article 106 of the 1992 Constitution. After a bill is passed by Parliament, it is presented to the President. The President must, within a specified period, either sign the bill to make it law or return it to Parliament with a written message explaining the reasons for refusal (a veto). If the President does not act within the period, the bill is deemed to have been assented to.

Q2: Can Parliament force a bill into law without the President’s signature?

A: Yes, but with a high threshold. If the President vetoes a bill (returns it), Parliament can override that veto. To do so, the bill must be passed again by a two-thirds majority of all members of Parliament (not just those voting). If it achieves this, the bill becomes law without presidential assent. This is a difficult but constitutionally explicit override mechanism.

Q3: What happens to a bill that passes Parliament but doesn’t get assent before that Parliament’s term ends?

A: This is a key point of ambiguity. The Constitution states that a bill pending in Parliament at the end of a session shall not lapse but shall be carried over to the next session. However, the specific status of a bill that has been passed by one Parliament but is awaiting assent when that Parliament is dissolved is less clear. The common legal view is that such a bill lapses and must be reintroduced as a new bill in the next Parliament, starting the process afresh. This is the practical reality that would face the LGBTQ bill if it is not assented to before the 2024 election.

Q4: Does the “ink is dripping” statement mean the bill is guaranteed to become law if Mahama wins?

A: It indicates a strong political intention and commitment from a key legislative leader who expects to serve in a Mahama administration. However, guarantees in politics are rare. Factors that could