Member of Parliament for Assin South and Ranking Member on Parliament’s Defence and Interior Committee, Rev. John Ntim Fordjour, has questioned amendments introduced into the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, arguing that the changes undermine the original intent of the legislation.

Speaking on Joy FM’s Super Morning Show, Rev. Fordjour expressed concern over provisions that exempt lawyers, journalists, media organisations, healthcare professionals, counsellors and other professionals from prosecution when acting within the scope of their duties.

According to him, the exemptions were unnecessary because the original bill did not criminalise legitimate professional services.

“The whole thing is being misconstrued. We never said nobody should counsel. We never said nobody should provide care. We said people should not use those platforms to promote or campaign for LGBTQ activities,” he stated.

The comments come days after Parliament passed the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill following the introduction of some amendments, a move that has generated debate among supporters and opponents of the legislation.

Rev. Fordjour, who was among the principal promoters of the original bill passed by Parliament in 2024, argued that professionals such as lawyers and doctors did not require special protection because their duties do not amount to advocacy.

“A lawyer representing a person in court is not promoting what that person is accused of. A doctor treating a patient is not promoting anything. A pastor offering care is not promoting anything,” he said.

He contended that broad exemptions could create loopholes that allow individuals to engage in activities that the legislation seeks to prohibit while claiming professional protection.

According to him, the focus of the legislation has always been on preventing advocacy, promotion and organised campaigns in support of LGBTQ practices.

The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill remains one of the most controversial pieces of legislation considered by Parliament in recent years, drawing support from religious groups and cultural organisations while attracting criticism from human rights advocates and some international partners.

The latest disagreement over amendments is expected to remain a major point of contention as the bill progresses through the next stages of the legislative process.