Ghana's Parliament did suspend a key procedural rule before passing the anti-LGBTQI+ bill. This action allowed the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill 2025, also known as the anti-LGBTQI+ bill, to be read for a third time and passed on the same day. The suspension of Order 172 (1) of the Standing Orders of Parliament occurred on May 29, 2026. This finding directly challenges a statement made by Speaker Alban Bagbin.
Speaker Bagbin stated to the House on Tuesday, June 2, 2026, that the rule was not suspended. Order 172 (1) requires that at least one sitting day must pass after a bill finishes its consideration stage before its third reading. The Speaker's claim suggested that Parliament followed this rule. However, parliamentary records from May 29, 2026, refute this assertion. The records show a specific motion was moved and passed to bypass the usual waiting period.
This event is significant within the context of Ghanaian legislative procedures. The proper application of standing orders ensures fairness and thorough debate in Parliament. Suspending such orders, even with the House's consent, can draw scrutiny. The anti-LGBTQI+ bill has been a subject of considerable public and parliamentary debate. Its passage, and the procedures followed, are therefore of keen interest to citizens and governance observers. Previous legislative processes in Ghana have also seen debates around procedural adherence and transparency.
According to parliamentary records, an acting Speaker, Bernard Ahiafor, presided over the proceedings on May 29, 2026. Following the conclusion of the bill's consideration stage, Majority Leader Mahama Ayariga requested the Speaker to proceed. Majority Chief Whip Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor then formally moved a motion. This motion explicitly asked the House to set aside Order 172 (1) for the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill 2025. The motion received a second from the Majority Leader, Mahama Ayariga. The ayes had it, and the motion was carried, allowing the third reading and passage.
The implications of this fact-check are considerable for parliamentary accountability. It highlights a discrepancy between the Speaker's official communication and the documented proceedings. This raises questions about the accuracy of information presented on the floor of Parliament. Future legislative actions by this Parliament will likely face increased scrutiny regarding procedural adherence. Decision-makers and the public will be watching closely to ensure transparency and adherence to established rules of procedure in all parliamentary business following this revelation.