Majority Leader Mahama Ayariga has defended the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill after its approval by Parliament, stressing that the legislation remains firm in its aim of outlawing LGBTQ+ activities and advocacy in Ghana.

Speaking on the floor of Parliament following the passage of the controversial legislation, commonly known as the anti-LGBTQ bill, Mr. Ayariga dismissed suggestions that amendments introduced during deliberations had weakened the intent of the bill.

The proposed law, backed by bipartisan Members of Parliament, seeks to criminalise LGBTQ+ conduct, advocacy, and the promotion of what it describes as non-traditional sexual practices and family values.

Its passage comes after months of heated national debate, legal concerns, and widespread international attention.

During discussions in the House, the Majority Leader explained that some of the committee’s proposed revisions were designed to ensure portions of the bill could withstand constitutional scrutiny, particularly in areas relating to media coverage and legal representation.

Mr. Ayariga noted that the amendments were intended to remove possible legal ambiguities and reduce the likelihood of constitutional challenges once the bill becomes law.

He further argued that the judiciary would likely be reluctant to punish lawyers solely for representing individuals accused under the legislation.

Despite the adjustments, the Majority Leader maintained that the central purpose of the bill remains intact.

“These are the only issues being described as watered down, but this bill has not been watered down,” he stated on the floor of Parliament.

He went on to reiterate what he described as the two key foundations of the legislation, insisting that the bill still strongly prohibits both LGBTQ+ practices and advocacy in the country.

“I am convinced that any court in this country would have struck down any attempt to prosecute a media house for reporting on a matter relating to LGBTQ,” he stated.

“And I am definitely convinced that no court would have tolerated the punishment of a lawyer who attempts to provide legal services in defense of a person practicing LGBTQ,” he added.

“So in my opinion, perhaps the committee needlessly brought this proposal to us,” he said. “But I think that it is out of abundance of caution to make things very clear that the committee proposed this amendment.”

“These are the only issues, these are the watered-down,” he remarked. “This bill is not watered down.”