EXPLAINER: What changed in Ghana’s new anti-LGBTQ+ Bill?
Parliament has once again passed the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, widely known as the anti‑LGBTQ+ Bill, reviving one of the most contentious pieces of legislation in Ghana’s recent history.
The latest version, approved on May 29, 2026, follows an earlier bill passed in February 2024 that failed to become law after former President Nana Akufo‑Addo declined to assent due to pending legal challenges.
The 2025 Bill retains most of the provisions that made the original legislation highly controversial, though Parliament has introduced several amendments that supporters say provide clarity — and critics argue significantly weaken the law.
What Remains Unchanged
At its core, the new Bill maintains the same objectives as the earlier version:
to prohibit LGBTQ+ activities and promote what it defines as Ghanaian family values.
Both versions:
- Criminalise same‑sex sexual relations
- Ban the promotion, sponsorship and funding of LGBTQ+ activities
- Prohibit LGBTQ+ organisations
- Restrict adoption and fostering by persons identified under LGBTQ+ categories
- Void certain marriages involving same‑sex couples or individuals who have undergone gender reassignment
- Require citizens to report offences under the law
In practical terms, the criminalisation framework remains largely intact.
What Has Changed
1. Broader Scope
The revised Bill expands the categories of persons who could fall under the law, placing greater emphasis on those involved in advocacy, promotion, sponsorship, support or funding of prohibited activities.
2. Stronger Focus on Advocacy
Clause 9 now explicitly targets propaganda, advocacy and promotion of LGBTQ+ activities — a change supporters say closes loopholes.
3. Expanded Role for Institutions
Parents, schools, religious bodies, traditional authorities, state institutions, the media and the creative arts sector are now expected to actively promote “family values”.
4. More Detailed Definitions
The interpretation section has been broadened to define terms such as ally, non‑binary, queer, pansexual, intersex and family values.
The Biggest Change: New Professional Exemptions
The most significant amendment is the introduction of exemptions for certain professional and public‑interest activities. Under the revised Bill, the law does not apply to:
- Lawyers providing legal services
- Journalists and media houses reporting in the ordinary course of work
- Doctors, psychologists and counsellors offering professional care
- Researchers, academics and scientists expressing expert opinions
- Public health programmes, including HIV/AIDS services
- Proceedings in courts, Parliament and commissions of inquiry
These exemptions were introduced after concerns that the earlier version could criminalise legitimate professional duties.
Why the Exemptions Are Controversial
The exemptions have sparked disagreement among some of the Bill’s own sponsors.
Lead sponsor Rev. John Ntim Fordjour argues that the amendments weaken the legislation and remove its “bite”.
The Minority Caucus also opposed aspects of the changes, saying they imply the earlier version was flawed.
However, supporters of the amendments insist they are necessary to protect professional work, public health, and freedom of expression from unintended criminalisation.
Another Key Legal Change
Parliament has amended the section on marriages covered by the Bill, changing the wording from “unenforceable” to “not recognised”.
Legal analysts say this shift could have broader implications, as it directly denies recognition of such unions rather than merely preventing their enforcement.
What Happens Next
The Bill now awaits presidential assent before it can become law.
Its passage is expected to reignite intense debate both locally and internationally. Supporters argue it protects Ghanaian cultural and family values, while critics warn it raises serious concerns about constitutional rights, freedom of expression, and access to healthcare.
For now, the most notable difference between the old and new versions is not the criminalisation framework — which remains largely unchanged — but the introduction of professional exemptions designed to shield journalists, lawyers, health workers and public‑interest actors from prosecution.
---CitiNewsRoom