The ongoing discussions and debates in Ghana surrounding the proposed bill on the Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill 2021 currently before the Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee of Ghana’s Parliament are becoming stretched and heated by the day.
The controversies generated by the bill have gained global attention, particularly following the interviews granted to CNN by Hon. Sam George Nettey, MP for Ningo-Prampram, who is the leading proponent of the bill and also by Archbishop Philip Naameh, the President of the Ghana Catholic Bishops’ Conference.
In the USA, for example, the discussions on the bill have led to some demonstrations in California and Florida by advocates, supporters and allies as well as members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex (LGBTQI+) community.
Some Highlights on the Contents and Memoranda on the Proposed Bill
The proposed Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill 2021 which is now at the consideration stage before Parliament is intended to prohibit and criminalise advocacy, funding and activities of the LGBTQI+ community in Ghana while promoting conversion therapy programmes as efforts intended to help persons with the above and other related sexual preferences and orientations.
Among others, the 38-page bill stipulates that people of the same-sex who engage in sexual intercourse are liable on summary conviction to a fine or a term of imprisonment not less than three years and not more than five years or both.
The bill targets lesbians, gays, transexual, transgender, queer, pansexual and any gender identity that is contrary to the binary categories of male and female, but it also stipulates that activists and advocates of LGBTQI+ rights as well as persons who through the use of technology and various forms of media promote and advocate activities related to LGBTQI+ would also be liable to fines and imprisonment or both.
In sum, proponents of the promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill 2021 articulate that the bill is seeking to protect the moral fiber of the Ghanaian society, promote cohesion and unity of Ghana and preserve the country’s time-tested cultural, religious and moral practices and beliefs which have kept the people together as one country all these years.
As we speak now, the Parliament of Ghana has received over 100 memos on the bill from various individuals and groups, including Religious Bodies, Civil Society Organisations, the National House of Chiefs and some policy think tanks, among others. All these memos have since October 2 been referred to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs for consideration.
Significant among these different memos sent to the above-named Parliamentary Committee is the one which was submitted by a group of 18 eminent lawyers, academics and other professionals who are asking Parliament to reject the bill.
The members of this Pro-LGBTQI+ Advocacy Coalition of 18 persons include Lawyer Akoto Ampaw, Profs. Kofi Gyimah-Boadi, H. Akwasi Prempeh, Abena Takyiwaa Manu, Audrey Gadzepo and Raymond Atuguba. Among others, the Group posits that the bill would erode a raft of fundamental human rights enshrined in Ghana’s 1992 Constitution and so it should be thrashed. Unsurprisingly, their position has received a lot of backlash, verbal attacks and criticisms from several individuals and groups in Ghana and beyond.
The Position of the 18-Member Pro-LGBTQI+ Advocacy Group on the Bill
The Group of 18 lawyers, academics and other professionals who are asking the Parliament of Ghana to put the brakes on the consideration and passage of the Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill 2021 into law has offered several reasons and arguments for their position both within their memorandum to the House of Parliament and also through various commentaries of members on various media platforms in Ghana and beyond.
Having examined the arguments and commentaries of the Group on the bill, I contend that the main arguments of the Pro-Advocacy Group can be condensed into three categories as highlighted below.
One, the Group argues that the passage of the bill to criminalize the activities of the LGBTQI+ community in Ghana constitutes a violation of the latter’s fundamental rights as enshrined in the 1992 Constitution of Ghana.
According to the Group, the bill is a needless intrusion into the lives of Ghanaian citizens who identify as lesbians, gays, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex, and therefore, it should not be entertained. Speaking on this point in one of her interviews, Prof. Emerita Takyiwaa Manuh opined that matters like sex are private matters of citizens and so the bill is a massive intrusion into the private lives of people.
According to her, sex between two consenting adults is a private matter and so the State must stay away from it. She argued that, “If they are doing something in private, it is not the business of anybody. You can deny (same-sex) people from getting married … but you cannot tell two people what they can or cannot do in private … it is their private affair, and they have the right to live their lives” (Ghanaweb, Oct. 15, 2021).
The above position of Prof. Takyiwaa Manuh is shared by Lawyer Akoto Ampaw, the leader of the Group, who similarly argues that the Constitution of Ghana guarantees fundamental rights for all citizens and the passage of the bill will largely infringe on these rights, and therefore, it should not be passed.
According to Mr. Akoto-Ampaw, the Group is not promoting same-sex marriages, but it abhors the violation of human rights because those who identify as members of the LGBTQI+ are also human beings and citizens of Ghana whose rights must not be infringed upon.
In summary, for the Pro-LGBTQI+ Advocacy Group, the proposed bill is in direct conflict with a number of constitutionally protected fundamental human freedoms and rights in the 1992 Constitution, and since every person is entitled to human rights, the bill should be thrashed.
Two, the Group postulates that Ghana is a secular state and therefore, the use of religion to advance the bill is in direct conflict with the secular nature of Ghana as a country. According to the members, it is worrying that religion is largely being used as a basis to initiate a legislation that infringes on the rights of the LGBTQI+ community in Ghana.
For the members of the Group, even if religion, and in particular Christianity, is used as a basis to legislate this bill, the Christian religion does not preach hate or discrimination against people but rather, God’s love, mercy and compassion for all. Thus, according to the members of the Group, the position of the various Religious Bodies in Ghana on the bill is a deviation of what is taught by their respective faiths.
Mr. Akoto-Ampaw makes the case that at the heart of Christianity and Islam is love and compassion to sinners in order to draw them to God. According to him, Christ did not come for the righteous but for sinners. On her part, Prof. Adomako Ampofo, not a member but supporter of the Group, says that having read the Bill in its entirety, she struggled to find Jesus Christ in it.
In summary, the members of the LGBTQI+ Advocacy Coalition believe that the use of religion as a basis for and in pursuit of the proposed bill is flawed because Ghana is a secular state and not a theocracy. Moreover, they contend that the bill when passed will promote hate towards people when the religions are supposed to preach love, grace, compassion and redemption of God for all.
Three, the Pro-LGBTQI+ Advocacy Group believes that the bill is being pursued against a minority group in the country and this according to them, is a dangerous route to take. Speaking on this matter in one of his recent interviews, Mr. Akoto Ampaw again stated that, “if the view of Ghanaians is that the overwhelming majority do not like the activities of the LGBTQI+ community and so should be criminalized, then it means the Constitution has no place. It means that today, a small minority like the LGBTQI+ group has been targeted and their existence criminalized.
Tomorrow, it could be some small religious group that people don’t like, they will criminalize them contrary to the Constitution. The next day, it will be other minorities in the country, and this is what happened under Adolf Hitler” (Ghanaweb, Oct. 14, 2021). Thus, according to Mr. Akoto Ampaw, the 97 percent of Ghanaians who do not approve or support LGBTQI+ should not be used as a basis for passing a law for the 3 percent of the population (ibid.).
In summary, for Mr. Akoto-Ampaw and the other members of his Group, the proposed bill is wrong because it is unnecessarily targeting a minority group to proscribe their activities.
Reasons I Think the Position of the Pro-LGBTQI+ Advocacy Group is WRONG
As a citizen of Ghana and not a spectator, I am in full support of the passage of the bill currently before Parliament and my candid and considered opinion is that the position of the 18-member Pro-LGBTQI+ Advocacy Group is WRONG. I contend that the arguments and views the Group has advanced so far in opposition to the bill have very weak legal-constitutional, moral-theological, and sociological and medical basis or foundation. My position is based on the following reasons.
First and foremost, regarding the question of human rights and the use of rights language by the Group, I should point out that several lawyers and experts in the law refer to the 1960 Criminal Offences Acts, Section 104, to argue that there are no such rights as LGBTQI+ rights which the Pro-LGBTQI+ Advocacy Group is pushing forward. According to these lawyers, Act 29 of the Criminal Offences Act states without equivocation that any person involved in having unnatural carnal knowledge with another person would have to be punished. This being the case, I opine that the argument by the Pro-Advocacy Group that the bill will violate the rights of LGBTQI+ persons is neither here nor there as the bill’s foundation is firmly anchored on existing laws of the land.
Moreover, I contend that when it comes to the issue of fundamental human rights, the first port of call should obviously be the United Nations Charter adopted in 1945 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948.
Both of them spell out clearly what the fundamental human rights in the world are and these include the right to life, healthcare, education, water, shelter, clothing, food, etc. They do not contain LGBTQI+ rights. Besides, the International Convention on Economic and Social Rights of 1976 as well as the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights make no mention of LGBTQI+ rights either.
As recently as June 2010, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decreed that homosexuality is not a human right. Under Articles 1 and 12, the Court stated that in all circumstances, marriage is to be limited to persons of the opposite sex and that individual countries can decide on their own laws on the issue of same-sex partnerships. As of today, only six European Union (EU) countries have legislated same-sex marriages while ten have recognised same-sex partnerships.
These countries include The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark and Norway. The continent of Europe has forty-four countries in all and in the vast majority of them, same-sex partnerships and similar sexual preferences are not recognized as human rights while most of them have outlawed these sexual preferences altogether. It is therefore interesting that the West from whom we are blindly copying these practices and attitudes do not all agree on these negative sexual preferences as human rights.
In addition, these Western countries have gone ahead and taken steps to outlaw other sexual practices such as incest and polygamy, viewing them as immoral and evil and thus making them criminal offences.
The question is: “Don’t the people in Europe also have freedoms and rights to choose to marry two or more if they wanted to? Yet, these Western societies and their Governments have decided that for the sake of cohesion and the integral development of their citizens, it is important to restrict marriage to one man and one woman and to outlaw unnatural sexual practices as well as incest and polygamy. Thus, I find it difficult to understand how the West is able to convince us that when it comes to issues like polygamy, it is evil and immoral, but when it comes to LGBTQI+, it is a question of human rights. If this is not absurd, then I do not know what is.
My final comment on the issue of rights is that every right has limits and right is not absurdity. For this reason, I believe that if the Government of any country thinks that the conduct of some private affairs of citizens can lead to negative repercussions on the individuals themselves, their families and the larger society, she has every right to restrict such rights. That is why nobody can convince me that one or two people smoking weed in their private rooms cannot be arrested.
That is why nobody can convince me that one or two people engaged in fraud in the comfort of their rooms cannot be arrested. It is this same reason that I believe that two persons of the same sex engaged in perverse sexual activity that will not only harm them but also have negative impact on their families and the society at large should not be allowed to do so even in the comfort of their rooms since the negative consequences of their actions will go beyond their rooms. Thus, I believe that the use of the right language to defend LGBTQI+ activities is flawed and of weak basis.
Secondly, I contend that the argument of the Pro-LGBTQI+ Advocacy Group that Ghana is a secular state and therefore the use of religion to advance the cause of the bill under consideration is wrong, is incorrect and overly stretched. The notion and belief that Ghana is a secular state are borne by some provisions under Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms in Chapter 5 of the 1992 Constitution. Relevant articles such as Articles 5(2), 17 (2, 3), 21(1c) and 35 (5) are useful references here.
These provisions stipulate that as a secular state, the State of Ghana shall not promote or sponsor any religion but shall allow all citizens the freedom to practice any religion of their choice without discrimination. The fundamental question is: “What are the implications of Ghana’s secular state particularly in regard to the bill at hand?”
The first thing to say is that I think that it is important to put the 1992 Constitution’s description of Ghana as a secular state into its proper context. I think that the description of Ghana as a secular state does not mean that Ghana is a godless state. What I think is evident from the above provision is that care must always be taken not to conflate the State and Religion together as if there was no real difference between the two and that the State should not promote one religion to the detriment of the others. The provision in no way implies that Ghana as a country is a godless State.
The second thing to say is that in Ghana at the moment, the majority of the population profess religious faith either as Christians or Muslims. According to the 2021 Population and Housing Census, about 17.6% of the population profess to be Muslims and close to 72% profess to be Christians with the rest either belonging to African Traditional Religion or non-affiliated.
This being the case, it goes without saying that even though Ghana is defined by the 1992 Constitution as a secular state, by culture and customary practice of the majority of its population, Ghana is a religious country and not a godless one. Hence, I contend that to argue that Ghana is a secular state and thence to promote a secular agenda whereby the state is aloof to the practice of religion will be an affront to the soul and spirit of the Ghanaian State.
Such a move will inevitably lead to issues of absurdity where, for example, the mention of “God” in the National Anthem and National Pledge will then have to be redefined just as the use of crosses, Bibles and Korans for swearing during inaugurations of Presidents, Ministers and Members of Parliament, among others. Indeed, Ghana is a secular State according to the 1992 Constitution, but as the Chief Imam rightly argues, “it is a secular State with a deep sense of God. Our sense of God is expressed succinctly in a number of our national symbols, including the National anthem, the National pledge, oath of office, introduction to the Constitution of Ghana itself, among others” (Ghanaweb, Oct. 16, 2021).
In summary, while I think that we must not lose sight of the fact that Ghana is a secular state according to the Constitutional provisions, we must also and at the same emphasize loud and clear that “secularism is not godlessness.” Hence, I opine that the use of religion to support this bill is in the right direction because religion is at the soul and spirit of the Ghanaian people.
Moreover, the added argument of the members of the Pro-LGBTQI+ Coalition that the various Religious Bodies in the country are not following the tenets of their religions which preach love, grace and compassion in respect to the bill cannot simply be true and ought to be dismissed and discarded completely. It is true that Christianity, for example, preaches that we should “love the sinner and hate the sin.
” This is indeed the attitude of God in the Christian Scriptures, but it does not end there. In the Christian Scriptures, beyond the fact that God loves the sinner but hates sin, God also calls the sinner to repentance, to a change of life, to a metanoia. For example, in Isaiah 1:16-20 in the Old Testament, Isaiah the prophet of God says to Israel, “Wash yourselves clean. Put away your misdeeds from before my eyes, cease doing evil, learn to do good … Though your sins are like scarlet, they will become white as snow. Though they be red as crimson, they will become white as wool.”
Thus, even though God loves the sinner, He hates sin because sin offends God but repentance pleases Him. Consequently, God always calls the sinner to repentance (cf. Isa. 55:7; Jer. 25:4-6; Ezek. 18:30-32; 33:7-9). Hence, any theology that teaches that God loves the sinner and hates sin but does not add that because God hates sin, He calls the sinner whom He loves to repentance, is a poor theology which does not fully and adequately portray the character of God as depicted in the Bible and taught consistently by the Christian Church.
In the New Testament also, but particularly in the Gospels, we also have the portrait of how Jesus Christ dealt with sinners, tax collectors and those considered as outcasts (cf. Matt. 9:11; 11:16-19). Take for example, Jesus’ encounter with the woman caught in adultery in John 8:1-11.
The woman who is supposedly caught in adultery is brought to Jesus for condemnation by the Jews. Here, we see misery (misera) before mercy (misericordia). The Jews who brought the woman expected Jesus to condemn her, but he did not condemn her neither did he commend her for her acts. Instead, Jesus said to her, “If no one has condemned you, neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more.” (cf. Jn. 8:11). Jesus did not condemn the woman but neither did he commend her and tell her to go and continue with her adultery. Rather, he asked her to “go and sin no more.”
As the merciful Lord, Jesus Christ realized that the woman was capable of living a life better than she was currently living and so he challenged her to change for the better. This is the same attitude we see in Jesus’ encounters with so-called sinners, tax collectors and outcasts in the Gospels (cf. Matt. 9:11). In Luke’s Gospel, when Jesus encountered Zacchaeus, Zacchaeus changed and said, “If I have defrauded anybody, I give back to them four-fold” (cf. Lk. 19:10), a sign of a clean break with the past.
Thus, biblically and theologically speaking, an encounter with God the Father and Jesus the Son is an encounter that should bring a positive change in a person’s life, a change from sin to grace. The merciful Jesus who welcomes sinners and tax collectors and dines with them is the same Jesus who preaches and says to them, “Repent and believe the good news” (cf. Mk. 1:15).
Additionally, much has been said about the love and compassion of Jesus for sinners and the need for Christians to show similar love and compassion towards all, especially members of the LGBTQI+ community. Well, I think that it again ought to be emphasized that Christian love does not condone evil and what is palpably wrong and false.
Instead, it strives to correct what is wrong and false in people and among human society. It is this love which prompts parents to correct their children when they see them go wrong, sometimes using very strong means like caning so that they will learn how to become better persons in society. It is this same love which prompts teachers to discipline their students when they see them not doing what they are supposed to do so that they can become better persons and leaders and role models in the future. It is this same love which prompts friends to correct one another when they are going wrong.
In effect, love is not simply permissive as to allow people to do whatever they want even though what they are doing is wrong. Hence, I argue that it is because the Christian Church loves persons with LGBTQI+ inclinations that is why the Church in Ghana is seeking to help our sisters and brothers to get healing so that they can live authentic lives.
For me, I think that the kind of love which is being preached by the Pro-Advocacy Group of 18 is a false love which instead of helping the LGBTQI+ community in Ghana to change is rather going to embolden them in the pursuit of their wrong choices and consequently, lead them to their own ruin. I believe that God’s grace can help all persons to reform if and when they allow themselves to be helped. The grace of God works on nature and never in a vacuum and to allow God’s grace to work in one’s life is to accept God’s love in all its fullness.
Thirdly, in reference to the argument that a certain minority is being targeted in this proposed bill, my position is that it is not simply a matter of minorities. In Ghana, there are many ethnic, religious and tribal minorities, but these are not being discriminated against in any way, shape or form unless there is evidence to the contrary that I am not aware of. As Ghanaians, we generally believe in mutual co-existence and harmony.
The spirit of “live and let us live” is embedded in us, the Ubuntu spirit. To that end, I contend that the bill is not simply a matter of targeting any minority but that of what the minority is doing which is a matter of grave public concern here. If the minority is engaged in what is legal and approved, there will be no legislation to proscribe their activities. On the contrary, if what the minority is doing is something which offends the cultural, religious and moral sensibilities of the vast majority of Ghanaians as is the case with LGBTQI+ community, then in all sincerity, I think that it is reasonable that their acts be corrected through appropriate means.
Fourthly, I find it totally surprising but also intriguing that in all their infatuation with rights and rights language, no member of the Pro-LGBTQI+ Advocacy Group has thus far said anything about responsibilities since rights and responsibilities always go together. In other words, if the argument is that individuals engaged in LGBTQI+ activities have rights to do what they want to do in their private rooms, what are the possible effects of what they do in privacy on themselves, their families and the larger society? Thus, in terms of the possible effects of their actions, what responsibilities do they owe to themselves, their relations and the larger society?
Speaking about the possible health and medical effects of LGBTQI+ activities, Dr. Bernard Okoe-Boye, a reputable medical doctor and one time MP for Ledzokuku, has argued forcefully that there are negative medical and health implications regarding same-sex and related sexual activities. According to him, research indicates that homosexuals are more prone or vulnerable to certain diseases due to the nature of their sexual intercourse and that HIV for example was first discovered among same-sex individuals.
He adds that people who practice same-sex relations often suffer from severe mental and psychological illnesses and that anorectal cancers which is a disease that has got to do with the back of a man is high among same-sex persons. Recently, the Director General of the National AIDS Commission, Dr. Steve Kyeremeh Atuahene, has also revealed that HIV risk is very high among the LGBTQI+ community and sex workers of all kinds. According to him, these risky sexual behaviours trickle down to the general population and therefore, to tackle the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in Ghana, it was important to tackle first the phenomenon of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders (Ghanaweb, Oct. 4, 2021).
From all the above pieces of evidence above, it stands to reason that the health implications of LGBTQI+ activities are huge and therefore, it is prudent that measures be put in place to forestall these as much as possible. It is based on this that I posit that the proposed bill is timely and those who are advocating LGBTQI+ activities should also try to avert their minds to the expert medical advice and health complications regarding such activities and not only be overly concerned about rights.
Lastly, my argument that the Pro-Advocacy Group is wrong in their position on the issue at hand is borne by the reality that there does not seem to be an end in sight regarding the activities of the LGBTQI+ community. In effect, LGBTQI+ is just a part of a larger amalgam of perverse sexual orientations which as of today stands at LGBTQQIP2SAA+, meaning lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, queer, intersex, pansexual, two-spirit (2S) androgynous and asexual.
The + (plus) in the abbreviation is an indicator that the promoters of the LGBTQI+ sexuality intend to add more deviant sex lifestyles and there is no end in sight in the foreseeable future. I believe that an unending amalgamation of deviant sexual behaviours is an absurdity and can never be a right.
To sum up, I argue that LGBTQI+ are not rights but deviant sexual behaviours that must not be entertained in our country but corrected quickly with a legislation such as what the current bill before Parliament is seeking to do before its subtle influence erode every moral, cultural and religious sensibilities that we have built as a people over all these years.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I do not subscribe to any threats, verbal attacks and or physical assaults on anybody, not least the members of the LGBTQI+ community in Ghana or the members of the Pro-LGBTQI+ Coalition neither do I ascribe to the subtle attempts being made by some Western countries and development partners to influence our lawmakers and those who support the bill to back down, through for example, visa denials.
Ghana is a sovereign nation which must be allowed to use its constitutional means to chart a path that she believes is good for the future of her citizens just as these Western countries also make their own laws to suit their citizens without pressure or coercion from outsiders.
With this said, I posit that any overt or covert attempts aimed at unduly influencing our country’s lawmakers from doing what they have been voted to do must be discontinued and condemned as shameful and despicable. I believe that Ghana’s Parliament will do a good job on the proposed bill and so should be allowed to do their work in peace.
While they are at it, my humble advice to all the 18 members of the Pro-LGBTQI+ Advocacy Group and their supporters is that as apostles of rights in the country, they should equally spend half of the energy with which they are using to champion the rights of LGBTQI+ persons in Ghana on the other important fundamental human rights of Ghanaians such as the right of all citizens to good affordable education, clean water, clean environment, good roads, healthcare, among others.
I believe these are also important rights that they must consider as worthy of their focus, attention and efforts. In the end, I remain confident that the bill under discussion will stand the test of time and will be passed in due course. I pray that God will continue to bless our homeland, Ghana and make our nation greater and stronger.
