Anti-LGBTQ Bill is duly passed, I believe it is too late in the day to reverse it — Atta Akyea

Former Abuakwa South MP, Samuel Atta Akyea

Former Abuakwa South MP, Samuel Atta Akyea, has expressed doubts over Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin’s decision to halt the transmission of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2025, for presidential assent, questioning how the move can be reversed after the bill has already been passed by Parliament.

Mr Atta Akyea argued that the anti LGBTQ Bill had already completed the legislative process under the supervision of the First Deputy Speaker and should ordinarily proceed to the next stage for presidential assent.

His comments come after the Speaker directed a reconsideration of the controversial bill, citing concerns about the manner in which it was passed on May 29, 2026.

According to him, once a presiding officer has guided the House through the passage of a bill, the decision becomes final and difficult to reverse through parliamentary procedure.

“I believe it is water under the bridge because if it’s been passed, he was not there physically.

“But the First Deputy Speaker presided over affairs and then handed down the gavel; that is the end of the matter. The Bill is duly passed. I believe it is too late in the day to reverse it. More so when the next stage of trying to conclude the matter is for the presidential assent to be given,” he said in an interview on Citi FM on Wednesday, June 3, 2026.

Mr Atta Akyea further questioned the procedural basis for the Speaker’s intention to revisit the matter after its passage.

“I wonder how the Speaker is going to use any of the rules to reverse what has been concluded. Maybe he has more superior thinking of the matter than myself but it is a very tall order,” he added.

The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2025, has sparked renewed public and political debate following the Speaker’s intervention, with calls for further scrutiny of its legislative process.

President John Dramani Mahama has also stated that the bill is still far from becoming law, insisting it requires further review before any assent is considered, citing procedural and constitutional concerns.