The Minority in Parliament has accused the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and leading advocates of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill of misleading Ghanaians. They stated that the public was not told the full truth about the bill's status. This happened in the previous Parliament.
Rev. John Ntim Fordjour, a Member of Parliament for Assin South, made these claims at a press conference in Accra on June 1. He stated that the public narrative falsely suggested former President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo refused to sign the bill. This narrative was used to create public pressure against him. Rev. Fordjour argued this portrayal was based on incomplete information.
President John Dramani Mahama has since stated that the bill passed by the Eighth Parliament was not presented to former President Akufo-Addo for his agreement. Mr. Mahama explained this was because legal challenges against the bill were before the courts. Rev. Fordjour questioned why the former President was then blamed for the delay if the bill was not even submitted to him.
This revelation significantly changes how the public should understand the events. Rev. Fordjour contended that if the bill was not presented for presidential assent, then accusing the former president of blocking it was based on a partial account of facts. This suggests a deliberate withholding of information from the public.
Rev. Fordjour stressed that political leaders must be transparent. He called on those who pushed for the bill's immediate signing to explain what they knew about the court cases. He also asked if they informed the public about these legal issues at the time. He stated that when leaders rally citizens, they must provide complete information.
The debate over the Family Values Bill, often referred to as the anti-LGBTQ+ bill, has been a significant political and social issue. Its passage and potential assent have been closely watched. The Minority's claims point to a potential manipulation of public opinion. This raises questions about accountability in political discourse. The specifics of the legal challenges remain a key point of interest. The extent of amendments to the bill also adds layers to the discussion. Rev. Fordjour previously questioned if the bill's force was diluted through these changes.