1. If you listen carefully to the wording of The Speaker, Alban Bagbin's statement, he said he is "appealing" to the MPs to revisit the process, to reconsider the bill at the consideration stage and 3rd reading.

The reason he cannot make this a definite pronouncement or directive is simple: he is not a voting member of the House, and such decisions to reverse a matter like undoing a critical legislative process can only be taken by voting members of the House.

2. THE BASIS FOR THE SPEAKER'S REQUEST.
   The Speaker based his position on two things: breach of procedure and lack of demonstrable consensus on the floor.
   The breach of procedure concerned only the provisions of Orders 170, 171, and 172.
   170 and 171 laid down the processes to be observed at the second reading and consideration stage of a bill in parliament. What we all know as an amendment to the bill ( where some words may be deleted and/or replaced, a sentence could be re-phrased, and an entire clause could be taken out or added )
   That is the stage the minority’s 'fight' over 22 deletions and 31 insertions, and the concern over the provision of an exemption for clause 9 took centre stage in parliament, and subsequent press conferences.
   It is such an important stage in the law-making process because that is where the bill is properly shaped.

The key issue, however, is order 172, which terminates the consideration stage automatically, and pushes it to another day, for all of the drafters to effect the amendments, and members given copies for perusal, before the third Reading, and subsequent passage.

Third Reading of Bills:

172. (1) "Where a Bill has passed through the Consideration Stage, the Third Reading shall not be taken until at least one sitting day has elapsed."
     That is where the crust of the Speaker's alleged procedural breach comes in because the bill was "fast-tracked" and passed the same day.

The Orders of Parliament, however, provide that the House can step aside from this 172 (1) by invoking Order 3.

Suspension of Standing Orders
3.(1) Subject to the provisions of the Constitution, a Motion for the suspension of an order or a part of an order may be moved without notice with the leave of the House.
(2) Where the Order or a part of the Order is to be suspended, reasons must be stated prior to the suspension by the mover of the Motion.
(3) The Speaker shall suspend the Order pursuant to the leave of the House.

Speaker Bagbin's position is that this was not done.

This we will, however, find out from the Majority Leader, Hon. Mahama Ayariga, in his radio interview that, contrary to the Speaker's assertion, 172(1) was duly stepped aside as required. And this is evident in the live stream of proceedings available on Parliament’s YouTube page.

The motion was moved by the Majority Chief Whip, Hon. Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor and seconded by the Majority Leader, Mahama Ayariga. A question was put to the House by the presiding Speaker, Bernard Ahiafor, and members responded in the affirmative, and the Motion was carried.

The second ground provided by the Speaker is a lack of consensus on the floor. In the Speaker's wisdom, the anti-LGBTQI+ bill is a very critical matter of national, bipartisan, and international interest. And the only way to win in this is to not only demonstrate bipartisan support for the bill at the committee level, but, most importantly, on the floor of Parliament, during the approval process, in the full glare of the cameras.

This position is not the law. It is one founded on the wisdom and experience of the Speaker.

WHY BAGBIN'S APPEAL COULD BE REJECTED.
On the evidence of the fact that Order 172 (1) was duly stepped aside for the approval process to be consummated on the same day, the leaders, especially the Majority, could reject the procedural infraction raised by the Speaker, and provide evidence as captured in the hazards to support that position.

Already, the majority leader has publicly rejected the Speaker's call for consensus, stating clearly that there is no consensus to be built with the Minority, who have taken an entrenched position on the amendments.

As it stands, one side will definitely have to compromise. Either the Speaker, in the face of the evidence, or the members, to avoid going the long hall with the President's assent, where he may be compelled to trigger a full referral process to the AG, Council of State, or, in the extreme, back to Parliament with stated reasons.

Remember, again, that the sole decision to rescind the passage that took place on Friday lies with the MPs, not the Speaker. So, for now, the bill stands passed, until the House officially grant the Speaker's request.

So where do we go from here?