John Mahama on Anti-LGBTQI Bill: Decision to Sign Depends on Bill’s Content

 

John Dramani Mahama, the Presidential Candidate of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), has stated the conditions he would consider before signing the anti-LGBTQI bill if elected president.

 

John Dramani Mahama stated that his decision to sign the bill would depend on its contents. In a BBC Africa interview on Wednesday, December 4, Mahama explained, “It is not an anti-LGBTQI Bill, it is a Family Values Bill. It was approved unanimously by our parliament. [LGBTQI] goes against our African culture and religious faith, but I think we must examine the Bill.

 

The president should identify any issues with it and either send it back to Parliament or consult the Council of State for advice.” When asked if he would have taken this approach if he were president when the Bill passed, Mahama confirmed, “That is what I would have done.”

When asked directly whether he would sign the bill if elected president, John Dramani Mahama replied, “It depends on what is in the Bill.”

 

Background

 

Two ongoing lawsuits before the Supreme Court are challenging the constitutionality of the recently passed “Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill” by Parliament.

 

In the first case, Richard Dela Sky, a prominent legal practitioner, contends that the bill infringes upon several provisions of the 1992 Constitution, including Articles 33(5), 12(1) and (2), 15(1), 17(1) and (2), 18(2), and 21(1)(a)(b)(d)(e). He is seeking eight reliefs, one of which requests a declaration that the Speaker of Parliament violated Article 108(a)(ii) by permitting the passage of a bill that imposes charges on the Consolidated Fund or other public funds of Ghana.

 

In the second case, Dr. Amanda Odoi has raised concerns over specific provisions of the bill. She is requesting a restraining order to prevent the Speaker of Parliament, the Attorney-General, and the Clerk of Parliament from forwarding the bill to President Akufo-Addo for assent.

 

Both lawsuits aim to prevent the bill’s implementation, citing alleged constitutional violations and concerns over legal overreach.