TIERs stated on X: “Ghana’s parliament just passed one of the most sweeping anti-queer bills. Identifying as queer carries a prison sentence, so does standing with someone who is. Now is the time to make noise. The president has not signed yet, and that window is closing. Do not stay silent!
What’s in the bill
The bill approved on Friday maintains Ghana’s existing penalty of up to three years in prison for same-sex sexual acts. It also bans “funding, sponsorship or promotion” of LGBTQ acts, with prison terms ranging from three to five years. And it introduces a “duty to report” prohibited LGBTQ acts to a police officer or other authorities, with violators facing up to three years behind bars.
In a revision from the previous version of the bill, media,, legal, and healthcare professionals who report on, represent or treat GBTQ+ people are exempted from prosecution for those activities.
Regarding the legal challenge, Asaase Radio reported:
Anti-LGBTQ Bill could face court challenge over quorum, lawyer warns
By Jonathan Ofori
Executive Director of the Africa Center for International Law and Accountability (ACILA) William Nyarko has warned that the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill 2025 could face constitutional challenges over the circumstances surrounding its passage in Parliament, even if it receives presidential assent.
William Nyarko of the Africa Center for International Law and Accountability (ACILA) said potential legal challenges may focus not only on alleged infringements of fundamental rights but also on whether Parliament complied with constitutional quorum requirements when approving the legislation.
In a Facebook post following Parliament’s passage of the bill, Nyarko questioned whether the minimum number of lawmakers required under the Constitution were present when the vote was taken.
He cited Article 104(1) of the 1992 Constitution, which requires at least half of all Members of Parliament to be present for the determination of any matter, including the passage of a bill.
With Parliament currently comprising 276 members, at least 138 lawmakers would have been required to be present for the vote to be constitutionally valid, he argued. …
“The critical question … is whether the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill was passed with the constitutionally required quorum of 138 MPs present,” he wrote.
According to Nyarko, information currently available in the public domain does not conclusively answer that question.
He argued that if a court later determines that the constitutional quorum requirement was not met, the resulting law could be declared unconstitutional and void regardless of its substantive provisions.