By Emmanuel Nii Sackey
The Minority in Parliament has accused President John Dramani Mahama of reversing his stance on the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, describing the shift as a betrayal of commitments made to Ghanaians prior to the 2024 general elections.
The criticism was delivered at a press conference at Parliament House by John Ntim Fordjour, Member of Parliament for Assin South, who spoke on behalf of the caucus.
Addressing journalists, Rev. Fordjour alleged that the President and his administration had secured electoral victory on the back of strong public advocacy for the bill, only to retreat from that position after assuming office.
He described the development as a “grand deception,” arguing that the shift reflects a disconnect between campaign rhetoric and governance decisions. Rev. Fordjour traced the origins of the bill to 2021, when it was introduced as a private member’s bill with eight sponsors drawn from both sides of Parliament.
He noted that several members of the National Democratic Congress were among the sponsors, including Samuel Nartey George, Dela Sowah, Emmanuel Kwesi Bedzra, Alhassan Suhuyini, Rita Odoley Sowah, Helen Adjoa Ntooso, and Rockson Nelson Dafeamakpo.
According to him, the bill was supported out of what proponents described as a reflection of Ghanaian cultural values and religious beliefs. He argued that during this period, the NDC adopted a firm and assertive position, actively engaging the public and various stakeholder groups to build support.
Rev. Fordjour claimed that the issue became a significant political tool in the lead up to the 2024 elections. He said the NDC mobilised support across communities, religious institutions, and civil society, while portraying the then administration of Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo as hesitant on the matter.
Campaign Promises Contrasted with Current Stance
The Minority further alleged that during the 2024 campaign, then candidate Mahama made clear commitments to assent to the bill if elected. Rev. Fordjour said the President had framed the issue as one of national sovereignty, arguing that Ghana should not be influenced by external actors in determining its laws.
“He presented himself to Ghanaians as the ultimate uncompromising defender of our family values,” Rev. Fordjour stated, adding that such assurances resonated strongly with sections of the electorate.
However, he argued that the narrative began to change shortly after the NDC assumed power in 2025. According to him, the strong rhetoric of opposition was replaced by a more cautious and procedural approach to the legislation. Rev. Fordjour pointed to engagements between the President and religious leaders as evidence of the shift.
He noted that in January 2025, during a meeting with the Catholic Bishops’ Conference, President Mahama indicated a preference for introducing a new government sponsored bill rather than proceeding with the existing private member’s bill.
He also referenced remarks by the President suggesting that the earlier bill had effectively lapsed with the expiration of the eighth Parliament. The President, he said, argued that any new legislation should be developed through broader consultation and backed by government.
According to the Minority, this marked a transition from what it described as firm advocacy to a more cautious strategy shaped by governance considerations. Rev. Fordjour suggested that factors such as constitutional processes and potential implications for international financial support may have influenced the shift.
Renewed Assurances but Reduced Urgency
Despite the perceived change in approach, the Minority acknowledged that President Mahama has continued to express opposition to same sex marriage. Rev. Fordjour cited a meeting with the Christian Council of Ghana in November 2025, during which the President reiterated his commitment to sign the bill if passed by Parliament.
However, he argued that these assurances have not translated into decisive action. Instead, he said, the issue has gradually been deprioritised within government’s policy agenda.
Rev. Fordjour referenced a statement made by the President on March 31, 2026, during an engagement with civil society organisations, where he indicated that the bill was no longer a priority compared to other national needs. The Minority described this as a significant departure from earlier commitments.
The caucus questioned whether the government’s current position reflects a genuine reassessment of priorities or a departure from previously held convictions. Rev. Fordjour asked whether the challenges now cited as pressing were not equally present during the campaign period when the bill was actively promoted.
“To advocate so aggressively for a policy in opposition only to dismiss it as a low priority once in government is the height of hypocrisy and deception.”
He further alleged that the President has adopted differing positions depending on the audience, citing claims by the African Human Rights Coalition that the administration presents contrasting messages domestically and internationally.
Debate Highlights Broader Governance Challenges
The controversy surrounding the bill underscores broader tensions between campaign promises and the practical realities of governance. While political actors often adopt firm positions during election periods, policy implementation frequently involves navigating legal, economic, and diplomatic considerations.
For the Minority, however, the issue remains one of accountability and consistency. Rev. Fordjour maintained that the government must clearly explain its current position and outline a definitive path forward on the legislation.
As the debate continues, the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill remains a subject of national discussion, reflecting the intersection of law, culture, politics, and governance in Ghana’s evolving democratic landscape.