Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin has appealed to Members of Parliament (MPs) to reconsider the recently passed anti-LGBTQI+ bill. He asked them to revisit the bill at the consideration stage and third reading. This request stems from alleged breaches of parliamentary procedure and a lack of demonstrable consensus during its passage.
The Speaker’s appeal is based on two main points. He cited procedural breaches concerning Orders 170, 171, and particularly 172. Order 172 (1) states that the third reading of a bill should not happen until at least one sitting day after the consideration stage. Bagbin claims the bill was “fast-tracked” and passed the same day. He also argued that there was a lack of clear consensus among MPs on such a critical national issue.
This situation highlights the ongoing complexities and political intricacies within Ghana's legislative process. Parliamentary procedures ensure thorough debate and scrutiny of bills, aiming for broad agreement. The anti-LGBTQI+ bill has generated significant national and international interest. This makes its handling a key moment for Ghana’s political system and judicial review processes.
However, the Majority Leader, Hon. Mahama Ayariga, has stated that Parliament did properly set aside Order 172 (1). He confirmed this in a radio interview. Live streams of parliamentary proceedings support this claim. The motion to suspend the order was moved by the Majority Chief Whip, Hon. Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor. The Majority Leader then seconded the motion. The Presiding Speaker, Bernard Ahiafor, put the question to the House, and members affirmatively carried the motion.
Given this evidence, the Majority in Parliament could reject Speaker Bagbin's call for reconsideration. They can provide records from the parliamentary proceedings to support their position. The Majority Leader has already publicly rejected the Speaker's call for consensus. He stated there is no common ground to build with the Minority, who have taken a firm stance on the bill's amendments.
The implications are significant for the future of the anti-LGBTQI+ bill. If the Speaker's request is denied, the bill will remain passed as it currently stands. The next step would involve the President's assent. The President may then refer the bill to the Attorney-General, the Council of State, or even send it back to Parliament with reasons for any concerns. Ultimately, the decision to reverse the bill's passage rests with the voting MPs, not solely with the Speaker.
This development could lead to further political debate and potential legal challenges. It also underscores an important principle of parliamentary democracy: the authority of elected members to make legislative decisions. The process will test the balance of power between the Speaker’s administrative role and the legislative power of MPs. Political observers will closely monitor both the Majority’s response and the potential for a presidential referral. This decision will define how Ghana addresses contentious social legislation.