Reintroducing Ghana’s Anti-LGBTQ Bill: Abu Jinapor’s Stand and National Dynamics

Introduction

In a move that has reignited contentious debates across Ghana, Member of Parliament (MP) Samuel Abu Jinapor is urging the reinstatement of a long-standing but controversial law—the Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill—without any modifications. Originally approved by the Eighth Parliament of Ghana in 2024, the bill never received presidential assent before the end of the previous administration’s term in January 2025. Now, under pressure from renewed political momentum, Abu Jinapor is demanding that the reintroduction proceed verbatim, rejecting any proposed amendments. This article examines the historical context, political tensions, and legal ramifications of this reemerging issue.

Analysis

Political Tensions: A Divided Parliament

The Eighth Parliament (2020–2024), dominated by the governing New Patriotic Party (NPP), passed the Anti-LGBTQ Bill in 2024 amid significant public and religious group support. However, outgoing President Nana Akufo-Addo withheld assent, citing constitutional concerns about the bill’s alignment with Ghana’s international human rights commitments. The National Democratic Congress (NDC)-led Ninth Parliament, elected in December 2024, now faces mounting pressure to reintroduce the legislation. Abu Jinapor, as the National Democratic Congress (NDC) candidate for Damongo and Deputy Spokesperson of the ruling party, insists on preserving the bill’s original text, arguing it reflects the “collective moral consensus” of Ghanaians.

Legal and Social Stakes

Critics argue that key provisions of the bill infringe on Ghana’s constitutional rights to freedom of expression, privacy, and non-discrimination under Article 27 of the 1992 Constitution. Legal scholars also note the potential for the law to conflict with Ghana’s obligations under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, to which it is a signatory. Meanwhile, international organizations like Human Rights Watch have condemned similar legislation in other African nations, warning of stigmatization and violence against LGBTQ+ individuals. Proponents, however, frame the bill as a defense of “traditional family values” threatened by global Westernization.

Summary

Sample Abu Jinapor’s renewed push to reintroduce Ghana’s Anti-LGBTQ Bill unchanged has sparked a national reckoning over religious values, human rights, and political agendas. Despite its unanimous approval by the Eighth Parliament, the bill’s predecessor in the Ninth Parliament risks dilution or legal challenges if amended.

Key Points

Practical Advice

For Lawmakers

• Prioritize public consultations to gauge citizen support before enacting legislation affecting fundamental rights.
• Avoid partisan debates that sideline legal experts and civil society stakeholders.
• Ensure alignment with existing laws and international treaties to prevent protracted litigation.

For Advocacy Groups

• Engage in dialogue with religious and community leaders to address cultural sensitivities.
• Leverage media platforms to educate the public on human rights frameworks and their national implications.

Points of Caution

Constitutional Integrity

Amending the Bill to bypass legal ambiguities risks accusations of procedural shortcuts. Ghana’s Constitution mandates that all laws align with the Bill of Rights, making any revision without judicial input potentially unlawful.

Diplomatic Risks

Ghana’s reliance on international development partnerships—including the African Union and the United Nations—could face strain if the bill exacerbates tensions with global human rights advocates.

Comparison

Similar to Nigeria’s 2014 Same-Sex Marriage Prohibition Act and Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill, Ghana’s proposed law risks economic sanctions and reputational harm. However, Ghana’s parliamentary debate reflects unique tensions between indigenous cultural norms and globalizing modernization.

Legal Implications

Constitutional Article 27 and the Bill of Rights

Ghana’s Constitution guarantees equality and non-discrimination. Critics argue that punitive LGBTQ+ clauses violate these protections. Any legislative effort must undergo rigorous constitutional review to avoid nullification by the Supreme Court.

International Human Rights Compliance

As a state party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Ghana is bound to Article 17(1), which prohibits incitement of discrimination. The bill’s language—targeting “LGBTQ+ activities”—could breach this article, inviting legal challenges from international bodies.

Conclusion

The reintroduction of Ghana’s Anti-LGBTQ Bill epitomizes the clash between cultural conservatism and human rights imperatives. As the Ninth Parliament navigates this divisive issue, stakeholders must balance ethical considerations with constitutional obligations to ensure any legislation withstands both legal scrutiny and public trust.

FAQ