Private legal practitioner and policy analyst Amanda Akuokor Clinton has criticised the new legislative proposal seeking to mandate DNA paternity testing for every child born in Ghanaian healthcare facilities.
The bill, which aims to criminalise what proponents term paternity fraud, has been described by Ms Clinton as a discriminatory instrument that institutionalises state-mandated suspicion at the moment of birth.
Her critique aligns with recent condemnations by Her Ladyship Justice Sedinam Awo Kwadam, who has similarly questioned the bill’s intent.
The Head of Chambers at Clinton Consultancy argues that the bill is structurally flawed and inherently biased against women.
@lawyerclintonafrica Ghana wants to force compulsory paternity tests on EVERY mother at birth 😱 Justice Sedinam Awo Kwadam says this bill is discriminatory and dangerous. Lawyer Amanda Akuokor Clinton Esq. breaks it down. Law & Power 👩🏾⚖️ Your thoughts? #GhanaLaw #PaternityTest #PaternityFraud #JusticeKwadam #LawAndPower ♬ original sound – Lawyer Clinton
By demanding proof of paternity while leaving maternity unquestioned, she contends the state is effectively forcing mothers to prove their sexual exclusivity as a prerequisite for leaving the hospital.
“This is not a gender-neutral policy; it is a legislative presumption that mothers alone must demonstrate fidelity… Such selectivity reveals the bill’s true character: not the pursuit of scientific fact, but the institutionalisation of distrust directed at women,” Ms Clinton observed.
Trial by ordeal logic
A major concern raised by the legal expert is the bill’s failure to distinguish between biological anomalies and deliberate deception. She warns that under this proposal, a DNA mismatch, regardless of the cause, is automatically treated as criminal fraud.
Ms Clinton noted that biology is far from simple, and by treating every exclusion as evidence of a crime, the bill revives an ancient “logic of trial by ordeal” where an adverse result alone determines guilt, ignoring modern legal principles of intent.
Existing Legal Framework and “Best Interests”
The commentary highlights that Ghana already possesses a robust, child-centred legal framework to handle parentage disputes. Ms Clinton cited several key statutes already in place:
- The Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323)
- The Children’s Act, 1998 (Act 560)
- The Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459)
She argues that these existing laws provide judicially supervised mechanisms that prioritise the child’s welfare, making the proposed compulsory testing unnecessary and disruptive.
Economic and Practical Hurdles
Beyond the moral and legal objections, Ms Clinton raised significant concerns regarding the funding of such a mandate. As a private member’s bill, it cannot legally draw from the Consolidated Fund. This implies that the cost of mandatory testing would likely fall on new parents.
“Shifting the cost to new parents — already facing hospital and postnatal expenses — would be both absurd and regressive. The state would be forcing families to finance their own vindication against a presumption of maternal deceit,” she stated.
A Call for Rejection
Ms Clinton concluded that truth in parentage is best served by a system that respects due process and treats both parents with equal dignity. She has urged the legislature to reject the proposal outright, advocating for policies grounded in trust rather than blanket coercion.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
