\n
\nTIERs stated on X: \u201cGhana\u2019s 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!
\nWhat\u2019s in the bill
\nThe bill approved on Friday maintains Ghana\u2019s existing penalty of up to three years in prison for same-sex sexual acts. It also bans \u201cfunding, sponsorship or promotion\u201d of LGBTQ acts, with prison terms ranging from three to five years. And it introduces a \u201cduty to report\u201d prohibited LGBTQ acts to a police officer or other authorities, with violators facing up to three years behind bars.
\nIn a revision from the previous version of the bill,\u00a0 media,, legal, and healthcare professionals who report on, represent or treat GBTQ+ people are exempted from prosecution for those activities.
\nRegarding the legal challenge, Asaase Radio reported:
\n See Also<\/p>\n
William Nyarko, executive director of the Africa Center for International Law and Accountability. (Photo courtesy of Asaase Radio) TIERs stated on X: \u201cGhana\u2019s 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\u2019s in the bill …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":1255,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"rop_custom_images_group":[],"rop_custom_messages_group":[],"rop_publish_now":"initial","rop_publish_now_accounts":{"facebook_3659155457675267_172535249438148":""},"rop_publish_now_history":[],"rop_publish_now_status":"pending","footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1254","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","","category-news"],"featured_image_urls":{"full":["https:\/\/xavieradioug.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Did-Ghana-Parliament-lack-a-quorum-when-it-passed-anti-LGBTQ.jpeg",1607,854,false],"thumbnail":["https:\/\/xavieradioug.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Did-Ghana-Parliament-lack-a-quorum-when-it-passed-anti-LGBTQ-150x150.jpeg",150,150,true],"medium":["https:\/\/xavieradioug.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Did-Ghana-Parliament-lack-a-quorum-when-it-passed-anti-LGBTQ-300x159.jpeg",300,159,true],"medium_large":["https:\/\/xavieradioug.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Did-Ghana-Parliament-lack-a-quorum-when-it-passed-anti-LGBTQ-768x408.jpeg",618,328,true],"large":["https:\/\/xavieradioug.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Did-Ghana-Parliament-lack-a-quorum-when-it-passed-anti-LGBTQ-1024x544.jpeg",618,328,true],"1536x1536":["https:\/\/xavieradioug.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Did-Ghana-Parliament-lack-a-quorum-when-it-passed-anti-LGBTQ-1536x816.jpeg",1536,816,true],"2048x2048":["https:\/\/xavieradioug.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Did-Ghana-Parliament-lack-a-quorum-when-it-passed-anti-LGBTQ.jpeg",1607,854,false],"tie-small":["https:\/\/xavieradioug.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Did-Ghana-Parliament-lack-a-quorum-when-it-passed-anti-LGBTQ-110x75.jpeg",110,75,true],"tie-medium":["https:\/\/xavieradioug.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Did-Ghana-Parliament-lack-a-quorum-when-it-passed-anti-LGBTQ-310x165.jpeg",310,165,true],"tie-large":["https:\/\/xavieradioug.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Did-Ghana-Parliament-lack-a-quorum-when-it-passed-anti-LGBTQ-310x205.jpeg",310,205,true],"slider":["https:\/\/xavieradioug.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Did-Ghana-Parliament-lack-a-quorum-when-it-passed-anti-LGBTQ-660x330.jpeg",660,330,true],"big-slider":["https:\/\/xavieradioug.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Did-Ghana-Parliament-lack-a-quorum-when-it-passed-anti-LGBTQ-1050x525.jpeg",1050,525,true]},"author_info":{"info":["Editor"]},"category_info":"News<\/a>","tag_info":"News","comment_count":"0","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xavieradioug.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1254","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xavieradioug.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xavieradioug.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xavieradioug.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xavieradioug.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1254"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xavieradioug.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1254\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xavieradioug.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1255"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xavieradioug.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1254"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xavieradioug.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1254"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xavieradioug.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1254"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nAnti-LGBTQ Bill could face court challenge over quorum, lawyer warns
\nBy Jonathan Ofori\u00a0
\nExecutive Director of the Africa Center for International Law and Accountability (ACILA) William Nyarko has\u00a0 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.
\nWilliam 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.
\nIn a Facebook post following Parliament\u2019s passage of the bill, Nyarko questioned whether the minimum number of lawmakers required under the Constitution were present when the vote was taken.
\nHe 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.
\nWith 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. \u2026
\n\u201cThe critical question \u2026 is whether the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill was passed with the constitutionally required quorum of 138 MPs present,\u201d he wrote.
\nAccording to Nyarko, information currently available in the public domain does not conclusively answer that question.
\nHe 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.<\/p>\n\n
Source link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"