The Minority caucus in Parliament has called on the government and promoters of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill to explain why the legislation passed by Parliament in 2024 was not presented to President John Mahama for assent in its original form but was instead returned to Parliament with 31 amendments. 

At a press conference in Parliament House on Monday, Reverend John Ntim Fordjour, sponsor of the Bill and NPP Member of Parliament for Assin South, posed what he described as a simple but serious question: “What changed?” 

“We have called this press conference to ask a simple but serious question on behalf of the Ghanaian people: What changed?” He stated. 

Rev. Ntim Fordjour stressed that the Minority was “not against the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill” and was “not attacking MPs from either side of the House who supported, sponsored, or worked on the Bill.” 

However, he said the Caucus had two major concerns. First, it believes the Bill appears to have lost some of the force and value that made it controversial and central to the court dispute. Second, it argues that Ghanaians were given the impression that former President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo had refused to sign the Bill in its entirety. 

He recalled that Parliament passed the Bill on February 28, 2024, and that the public message at the time was straightforward: “Sign the Bill.” 

“Not ‘review the Bill.’ Not ‘amend the Bill.’ Not ‘correct some provisions first.’ Simply: ‘Sign it,’” he said. 

According to the Assin South MP, former President Akufo-Addo “was placed under intense public pressure, criticised, accused of delay, and portrayed as the obstacle standing between the Bill and the people of Ghana.” 

He argued that this narrative was aggressively championed by leading voices within the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and supporters of the Bill, including Samuel Nartey George, MP for Ningo-Prampram; Emmanuel Bedzrah, MP for Ho West; Alhassan Suhuyini, MP for Tamale North; and Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, MP for South Dayi. 

Rev. Ntim Fordjour cited President Mahama’s reported position that “the Bill passed by the Eighth Parliament was not submitted to President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo for assent.” 

“If that is the position of the current President, then why was President Akufo-Addo made the target of public anger over a Bill which, by that account, had not even been properly submitted to him?” he asked. 

He further questioned why the former President was blamed for delays if the Bill had not been submitted for assent because it was before the courts. 

Addressing the amended Bill passed by Parliament on May 29, 2026, Rev. Ntim Fordjour noted that lawmakers had considered 31 amendments involving deletions, insertions, substitutions, new phrases, and, in some cases, entire clauses. 

“These changes go beyond minor corrections and affect the force, weight and legal character of the Bill,” he said. 

Citing examples, he pointed to Clause 1, where the phrase “holds out” was replaced with wording referring to a person who “identifies, openly represents that person or professes as.” 

“If the original phrase was not clear enough, why was the nation told that the Bill required only a signature?” he asked. 

He also highlighted changes in Clause 2, where “citizen” was replaced with “person”; Clause 3, where an entire sub-clause defining sexual intercourse within the context of the Bill was deleted and replaced; and Clause 6, where the provision criminalising the provision of premises for prohibited acts was removed and replaced. 

Additionally, he noted that Clause 9 introduced new exceptions covering legal advice, legal representation, submissions before courts and Parliament, academic, scientific and medical opinions, public health information, counselling services, journalism, HIV/AIDS services, and privileged communications. 

“If lawyers, journalists, academics, doctors, counsellors, public health workers and privileged communications now require protection, why was the Bill previously presented as if no such protection was required?” he asked. 

He also raised concerns about amendments affecting provisions related to the alleged subversion of family values and changes to certain criminal classifications, including misdemeanour provisions and second-degree felony classifications linked to premises. 

Rev. Ntim Fordjour said the issue also concerns the public record of former President Akufo-Addo, who, he argued, was portrayed by some as personally obstructing the Bill despite ongoing court proceedings and President Mahama’s assertion that the Bill had not been submitted for assent. 

“This is about public trust. When leaders mobilise citizens around a national issue, they must be honest with them,” he said. 

“You cannot tell Ghanaians yesterday that a Bill requires only a signature and then today return with amendments without explaining what happened in between.” 

The Minority listed nine questions it wants answered, including: "What informed the NDC’s change of position? Why was the same Bill that they claimed President Akufo-Addo refused to sign not presented to President Mahama in the same form? 

"What specific concerns led to the 31st amendments? When were those concerns identified? And what changed between the calls to “sign it now” and the decision to “amend it first”? 

“Until these questions are answered, the Ghanaian people are entitled to conclude that the story they were told in 2024 is not the full story they are seeing today,” he said. 

The Minority is therefore calling for truth, accountability, consistency, and respect for the intelligence of the Ghanaian people. 

“On a matter of this sensitivity, mere assertions are not enough. Political pressure is not enough. Silence is not enough. The Ghanaian people deserve clear answers,” he said.