Co-sponsor of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, Samuel Nartey George, has ruled out any parliamentary reconsideration of the legislation, asserting that the constitutional prerogative now resides exclusively with the President. He made these known in an interaction with the press on the fourth day of June, two thousand and twenty six.
According to Samuel Nartey George, the House functions as a chamber of rules and not appeals, and the Standing Orders provide no procedural avenue to revisit a bill once it has been passed. He stressed that the Speaker must uphold parliamentary orthodoxy, warning that attempts to reopen debate would contravene entrenched legislative doctrine. The legislator was emphatic that the enactment’s destiny now lies within the executive sphere.
The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, which seeks to criminalize LGBTQ+ advocacy and impose custodial penalties for related conduct, cleared Parliament earlier this year amid intense national and international scrutiny. According to Samuel Nartey George, the legislative journey is complete, and constitutional mechanisms dictate that the President either assents or returns the bill with reservations. He argued that calls for a fresh review misapprehend the doctrine of separation of powers.
Legal analysts observe that Ghana’s Constitution empowers the President to assent or remit legislation with commentary, yet remains silent on unilateral parliamentary reversal absent an executive referral. The measure has attracted diplomatic apprehension from foreign governments and rights organisations, while traditional leaders and faith coalitions have expressed resolute support. The Attorney-General has previously advised that certain provisions merit examination for alignment with constitutional liberties, a view that has emboldened appeals for further scrutiny.
Civil society actors continue to petition both Parliament and the Presidency, contending that the statute undermines fundamental freedoms and imperils Ghana’s international commitments. Advocates of the bill counter that it safeguards cultural sovereignty and familial institutions. According to Samuel Nartey George, deviating from the Standing Orders would corrode legislative integrity and establish a perilous precedent for subsequent enactments.
With the Presidency yet to signal assent or rejection, the legislation remains in constitutional abeyance. The impasse tests institutional boundaries between the legislative and executive arms during a period of pronounced social polarization. The President’s forthcoming decision will determine whether the bill transitions into law or returns to the House under constitutional instruction.
Source: #Howedey.comNews
Call or WhatsApp +233 20 2190 250 and share your story.
Author: Stella Sunu
