I decided to make this statement on the passage by the House on Friday, 29th May 2026, of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2025.
At the outset, I wish to commend Ghanaians for the broad support for the effort of our traditional, religious and civil society leaders to introduce a more comprehensive law capable of addressing the changing dynamics of human sexual rights and family values. In particular, I commend all the bi-partisan sponsors of the Bill, members of the Committee that considered the Bill, and all persons who have contributed to the legislative process. The Bill addresses matters that touch deeply on the moral convictions, cultural values, constitutional principles and social aspirations of our nation. It is therefore not surprising that it has attracted widespread public attention and significant parliamentary interest.
Hon Members, the records of the House of Friday, 29th May 2026, indicate that the Bill was taken through the Consideration Stage and thereafter read the Third Time and passed by the House the same day.
– Advertisement –
Although I wasn’t the presiding officer that day, as the Speaker, I remain, by virtue of my office, the custodian of the institutional integrity, procedural sanctity and dignity of Parliament. In that regard, I consider it my duty to draw the attention of the House to certain concerns which have since arisen regarding the manner in which the final stages of the Bill were conducted.
Hon Members, Order 20(4) of the Standing Orders requires the Speaker of Parliament to uphold the honour, dignity, and sanctity of the House; to promote consensus on matters under consideration in the House; be impartial, fair and firm in every matter in the performance of the functions of the Speaker; and to protect and preserve the rights of Members.
It is in the discharge of these responsibilities that I make this statement.
Hon Members, concerns relating to the application and effect of Orders 170, 171 and 172 of the Standing Orders of the House have been raised.
Order 170(2) requires that amendments agreed to during the consideration stage of a bill be captured accurately, appropriately, and incorporated into the Bill. Order 170(3) further provides that, at the end of the Consideration Stage of a Bill, the Clerk shall cause to be incorporated in the Bill the amendments agreed to by the House, where practicable, and make available the amended Bill to Members before the Third Reading of the Bill.
Order 171 provides a further safeguard by permitting a Member, immediately before Third Reading, to move that the Bill passes through a Second Consideration either wholly or in respect of a particular part or parts of the Bill or some proposed new clause or new schedule.
Order 172(1) also states that, “where a Bill has passed through the consideration stage, the third reading shall not be taken until at least one sitting day has elapsed”.
Hon Members, while the House possesses the power under Order 3 to suspend any Standing Order with the leave of the House, it did not do so. The purpose underlying Orders 170, 171 and 172 is clear. These provisions exist to ensure that Members are afforded a meaningful opportunity to know with certainty the exact text of a Bill upon which they are called to take a final legislative decision and to permit adequate reflection before the House finally commits itself to a legislative position.
In the aftermath of the proceedings of the House on Friday, concerns have been raised as to whether the final text of the Bill, incorporating all amendments agreed to during the Consideration Stage, was available to Members in a manner that enabled them to fully appreciate the exact form of the final Bill before the Third Reading and ultimate passage into law.
I have also taken note of concerns expressed by some Hon Members that amendments adopted during the Consideration Stage did not reflect the position taken by the Committee as stated in the conclusion of the Committee’s report: to wit, “the Committee, having carefully considered the Bill, unanimously recommends” its passage to the House. Neither did the proceedings of that day convey the unanimity nor bipartisan understanding upon which the Bill was initially promoted and deliberated upon.
Whether or not those concerns raised on the Floor and in the public discourse are ultimately justified is not for the Speaker to determine. There are, however, concerns that go to the heart of parliamentary consensus and the confidence of the people and Members in the legislative process.
Hon Members, the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2025 and its implications on the LGBTQ+ issue, are a global concern. Therefore, the eye of the world is upon this Parliament. What we do here must be able to withstand any legal and constitutional challenges that are sure to come.
The Bill has, from its inception, been presented to the nation as a bipartisan legislative initiative. Such bipartisan cooperation represents Parliament at its finest. It demonstrates to the people of Ghana that, notwithstanding political differences, Members of Parliament are capable of uniting around matters which they consider to be of national importance.
It is therefore my considered view that legislation of this magnitude ought, as far as practicable, to command not merely the numerical support of a majority of Members, but also the broad confidence of the House regarding both its substance and the process by which it was adopted. What is right must be done rightly.
Hon Members, I call on Parliament to rely on the provisions on motions and the conventions of this House, to go back to this historic and important Bill and repass it in a way that is truly bipartisan to conform with the convictions and confidence of our people, the initiators of the Bill.
For the avoidance of doubt, my concern is that legislation of such profound national importance should proceed on a foundation of broad parliamentary support, bipartisan cooperation, and scrupulous adherence to the procedures established by the Constitution and the Standing Orders of Parliament. The legitimacy, credibility and enduring authority of any law depend not only on the objective sought to be achieved, but also on the integrity of the process by which that law is enacted. Procedural law is equally important as substantive law.
Indeed, this statement is consistent with my obligation under Order 20(4)(b) of the Standing Orders to promote consensus on matters under consideration in the House. It is with this conviction that I invite Hon Members to reflect on whether further consideration of this matter may better secure the confidence, unity, collective ownership of the bill and respect of our faith, laws and passions.
Accordingly, I respectfully appeal to Hon Members to reflect carefully upon the issues raised and to consider, in the larger national interest, the bipartisan character of the Bill, the unity of the House, and the nation, and the need to maintain the highest standards of procedural integrity, to revisit its decision on the Third Reading of the Bill to permit a reconsideration of the final text of the Bill and any amendments thereto.
Such a course, if adopted by the House, would not be an abandonment of the Bill nor a rejection of its objectives. Rather, it would represent a reaffirmation of Parliament’s commitment to due process, fidelity to the Constitution, consensus-building, transparency and legislative certainty. It would ensure that any final decision taken by the House reflects not only the will of Parliament but also the fullest support of Ghanaians in the law that is ultimately enacted.
I remain confident that Hon Members will approach this matter with wisdom, patriotism, mutual respect and a shared commitment to the integrity of our parliamentary democracy and the dignity of this House.
I thank you for your attention.
