The Director of Communications for the Movement for Change, Mr Solomon Owusu, has called for the removal of Speaker of Parliament Mr Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, over his recent decision to seek a reconsideration of the controversial Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, popularly known as the Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill.

According to Mr Owusu, the Speaker's actions following the passage of the bill by Parliament on May 29 had created uncertainty around legislation that had already gone through the required parliamentary processes.

Speaking on the AM Show on JoyNews, Mr Owusu accused the Speaker of undermining the authority of Parliament and embarrassing both the lawmakers and parliamentary leadership who participated in the passage of the bill.

"I mean the Speaker of Parliament has done a great deal of disservice to the people of this country and he must be called out. I have said that he must be removed under Article 95D," Mr Owusu demanded during the show on Thursday, June 4.

The comments come amid growing debate over concerns raised by Mr Bagbin regarding aspects of the legislative process that led to the passage of the bill during his absence from the House.

Mr Owusu argued that Parliament was duly constituted when the bill was considered and passed, stressing that the First Deputy Speaker, Bernard Ahiafor, who presided over proceedings, exercised the same constitutional authority as the substantive Speaker.

"Nobody should create the impression that because Speaker Bagbin was not the one in the chair, there wasn't any Speaker. There was a Speaker sitting and he had the same powers as Speaker Bagbin," he said.

He maintained that parliamentary procedures had been followed and that if the Speaker had reservations regarding the process, such concerns ought to have been addressed internally rather than through public pronouncements.

"What prevented him from calling the leadership of Parliament and discussing it in camera?" Mr Owusu questioned.

"If you had discussed this with the leadership and expressed your reservations, why must you come to town and create the impression as though there is something wrong with the bill that has been passed?" he added.

Legislative process

The Movement for Change spokesperson further contended that the bill had undergone extensive scrutiny before reaching the plenary stage, including consideration by Parliament's Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee, where both Majority and Minority members were represented.

According to him, any substantive concerns regarding the contents of the bill should have been addressed during committee deliberations or floor debates.

"The reason you bring a bill to the plenary is for members who may not have been part of the committee process to raise concerns. What issues were raised that were not considered?" he asked.

Mr Owusu argued that the Speaker's intervention risked casting doubt on the legitimacy of Parliament's decision and potentially delaying a legislative process that had generated significant public interest.

Earlier support

The Movement for Change official also pointed to previous public statements by Mr Bagbin in support of the anti-LGBTQ+ legislation.

He recalled that the Speaker had, on several occasions, publicly advocated the passage of the bill, including engagements with religious leaders and traditional authorities.

"Speaker Bagbin met the clergy and told the entire world that he would make sure the LGBTQ bill was passed as soon as possible," Mr Owusu claimed.

He further alleged that the Speaker had repeatedly encouraged Parliament to expedite consideration of the legislation and therefore should not now appear to question the outcome of the process.

Public expectations

Mr Owusu said many Ghanaians expected the legislation to be transmitted to President John Dramani Mahama for consideration after its passage by Parliament.

According to him, public support for the bill remained strong, with many citizens viewing it as consistent with Ghana's cultural, religious and moral values.

"From a cultural perspective, from a moral perspective and from a religious perspective, about 99 per cent of the people of this country believe that this law must be there," he said.

He added that while opinions may differ on aspects of the legislation, Parliament's decision reflected the views of a significant section of the Ghanaian public.

The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill seeks to prohibit LGBTQ+ activities, advocacy and promotion in Ghana.

The legislation has been one of the most debated bills in Ghana's recent parliamentary history, attracting strong support from religious groups, traditional leaders and conservative organisations, while drawing criticism from human rights advocates and sections of the international community.

Following its passage on May 29, questions emerged regarding procedural concerns raised by parliamentary leadership, prompting renewed debate over the future of the legislation and the next steps required before it can be presented to the President for assent.

The controversy has since sparked wider discussions on parliamentary procedure, legislative independence and the role of the Speaker in the law-making process.