Private legal practitioner and activist Osagyefo Oliver Barker-Vormawor has raised questions regarding the procedural validity of Parliament’s recent passage of the controversial Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill, suggesting that the legislation may have been approved without the constitutionally required quorum.

In a post shared on Facebook, Mr Barker-Vormawor claimed that only 34 Members of Parliament were present when the bill was approved, suggesting that the decision may fall short of constitutional procedural requirements.

“Turns out the Anti-LGBTQ bill was passed without a quorum. Only 34 MPs? Hmmm,” he wrote, adding: “Over to the President. Cease and desist letter incoming?”

His comments have since circulated widely on social media, intensifying debate over both the legality and legitimacy of the legislative process used to pass the bill.

The legislation, which seeks to criminalise LGBTQ+ activities and related advocacy, was reportedly passed by Parliament with a number of amendments introduced at the committee stage.

Among the revisions are provisions exempting certain categories of professionals and institutions from sanctions under the law.

These include lawyers providing legal representation to individuals identified as LGBTQ+, journalists and media organisations reporting on LGBTQ+ issues, as well as medical professionals offering healthcare, counselling and psychological support.

The amendments were introduced in response to concerns raised during parliamentary deliberations and stakeholder engagements regarding the potential implications of the bill for professional practice, human rights, and access to essential services.

The revised version of the bill faced strong opposition from the Minority Caucus in Parliament, which argued that the changes highlighted fundamental weaknesses in the original draft legislation.

According to Minority members, the introduction of exemptions suggested that the bill, as initially presented for presidential assent under the previous administration, was flawed and required substantial revision before passage.

They further contended that the legislative process raised questions about consistency, legal clarity and the potential enforceability of the proposed law.