Majority Leader Mahama Ayariga has defended the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill following its passage in Parliament, insisting that the legislation remains uncompromising in its core objective of prohibiting both LGBTQ+ practices and advocacy in Ghana.

Speaking on the floor of Parliament after lawmakers approved the controversial bill, widely referred to as the anti-LGBTQ bill, Mr Ayariga rejected claims that amendments made during parliamentary deliberations had weakened the legislation.

• Read also: ‘It is a watered-down version’ – Minority MPs resist proposed exemptions in Anti-LGBTQ Bill

The bill, sponsored by bipartisan Members of Parliament, seeks to criminalise LGBTQ+ activities, advocacy and the promotion of what it describes as non-conventional sexual relations and family values.

Its passage follows months of intense public debate, legal scrutiny and international attention.

During his contribution to parliamentary proceedings, Mr Ayariga clarified that some of the amendments introduced by the committee were intended primarily to ensure that certain provisions would withstand constitutional scrutiny, particularly regarding media reporting and legal representation.

“I am convinced that any court in this country would have struck down any attempt to prosecute a media house for reporting on a matter relating to LGBTQ,” he stated.

• READ ALSO: Parliament passes controversial Anti-LGBTQ Bill

The Majority Leader further argued that Ghana’s courts would also be unlikely to support punitive action against lawyers who choose to represent persons accused under the law.

“And I am definitely convinced that no court would have tolerated the punishment of a lawyer who attempts to provide legal services in defense of a person practicing LGBTQ,” he added.

Mr Ayariga suggested that the committee may have acted with caution in proposing the amendments in order to eliminate ambiguity and avoid potential constitutional challenges.

“So in my opinion, perhaps the committee needlessly brought this proposal to us,” he said. “But I think that it is out of abundance of caution to make things very clear that the committee proposed this amendment.”

Despite those revisions, the Majority Leader firmly maintained that the substance and purpose of the bill had not been diluted in any significant way.

“These are the only issues, these are the watered-down,” he remarked. “This bill is not watered down.”

He proceeded to emphasise what he described as the two principal pillars of the legislation.