The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, has stated that the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2025—popularly known as the Anti‑LGBTQ+ Bill—can still be reconsidered even after its passage. He explained that the House retains the option of moving a motion to rescind its earlier decision on the legislation.
His remarks came following the Bill’s approval, during which he appealed for its reconsideration. Addressing members of the Supreme Court’s 150th Anniversary Planning Committee on Thursday, June 11, Bagbin dismissed claims that Parliament is deadlocked over the matter. He noted that arguments suggesting Parliament becomes functus officio once a law is passed are inaccurate, stressing that the legislative process continues until the Bill is forwarded to the President for assent.
Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin has emphasised that the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2025—commonly referred to as the Anti‑LGBTQ+ Bill—can still be reconsidered despite its passage. He explained that the legislative process allows Parliament to reflect on decisions already taken, noting that the Constitution does not impose a time limit for submitting a bill to the President for assent.
Bagbin pointed out that inconsistencies or errors are often identified after passage, prompting what he described as a “second reconsideration stage.” In such cases, Parliament can move a motion of rescission to withdraw its earlier decision on the third reading of a bill. “It’s really not the law that once the Speaker says the bill is read a third time and passed, Parliament is functus officio,” he stressed.
His comments follow his directive for Parliament to revisit the Bill after consultations with House leadership aimed at building a broader consensus. On Tuesday, June 2, he called for further engagement between Majority and Minority leaders, raising concerns about the process that led to the Bill’s approval.
Mr Bagbin said he was surprised the bill was fully passed on Friday, May 29, noting that he had expected Parliament to begin only the consideration stage before proceedings concluded. He maintained that the bill, given its public sensitivity and the level of national debate it has generated, requires broader consultation and consensus among stakeholders.
Source: Samuel Ackom
