The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, is not happy with Members of Parliament for rushing to pass the controversial anti-LGBTQ+ bill into law in his absence.
The strict ‘father’ of the august House, Speaker Bagbin, sternly informed members during the sitting on Tuesday, 2 June, 2026 that “you may not find my smiles again these few days. Because we have to inject strict discipline.”
Affirming the strong decision not to smile with the members, the Speaker did not care a hoot if that position would make him appear as a dictator.He said “Even if it means that you refer to me as a dictator, sometimes it’s very good to dictate.”
He urged the House to “take our business more seriously than we are doing. Because of its impact on the lives of the people we represent.”
ANTI-GAY BILL
The extempore remarks by Speaker Bagbin followed shortly after a written communication he read to the House about the passage of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values (Anti-LGBTQ+) bill into law.
At the fifth sitting of the second meeting of the second session of the ninth Parliament of the Fourth Republic, the House took the anti-LGBTQ+ bill through the consideration stage and third reading and passed it.
While the minority opposed that the bill had been watered down, compared to the previous one, the majority disagreed, adding that President Mahama was committed to assenting to the bill, immediately after he returns from the United Kingdom.
PREZ MAHAMA
However, speaking during a question-and-answer session at Chatham House, President John Mahama was asked whether he would sign the bill. He answered that the bill as passed would be thoroughly scrutinised before it is assented to.
He indicated that his legal team would look into the bill since it was privately sponsored and possibly forwarded to the Council of State for advice to ensure everything is in order.
On the other hand, Speaker Bagbin, addressing journalists on Monday, June 1, 2026 expressed surprise that the bill was considered and passed last Friday.
According to him, he had only left instructions that the bill should go through the consideration stage.
CONCERNS
In his official communication on Tuesday, Speaker Bagbin relied on Order 29 of the Standing Orders of the House to communicate what he said were concerns raised following the passage.
He quoted Orders 170, 171 and 172, explaining that they exist to ensure that members were afforded a meaningful opportunity to know with “certainty the exact text of a bill, upon which they are called to take a final legislative decision and to permit adequate reflection before the House finally commits itself to a legislative position.
“In the aftermath of the proceedings of the House on Friday, concerns have been raised as to whether the final text of the bill, incorporating all amendments agreed to during the consideration stage, was available to members in a manner that enabled them to fully appreciate the exact form of the final bill before the third reading and ultimate passage into law,” he added.
He continued that “I have also taken note of concerns expressed by some honourable members that amendments adopted during the consideration stage did not reflect the position taken by the committee. As stated in the conclusion of the committee’s report, to which, and I quote, ‘the committee, having carefully considered the bill, unanimously recommends its passage to the House’”.
The Speaker highlighted the importance of the bill and the global attention towards it, stating that its passage should not allow any loophole for legal battles after.
REVISIT
His concern was that legislation of such profound national importance should proceed on a foundation of broad parliamentary support, bipartisan cooperation and scrupulous adherence to the procedures established by the Constitution and the Standing Orders of Parliament.
He emphasised that procedural law is as equally important as substantive law.
“It is with this conviction that I invite honourable members to reflect on whether further consideration of this matter may better secure the confidence, unity, collective ownership of the bill, and respect of our faiths, laws, and passion for the nation,” he stressed.
“Accordingly, I respectfully appeal to honourable members to reflect carefully upon the issues raised and to consider in the larger national interest the bipartisan character of the bill, the unity of the House and the nation, and the need to maintain the highest standards of procedural integrity to revisit their decision on the third reading of the bill to permit a reconsideration of the final text of the bill and any amendments thereto. Such a course, if adopted by the House, would not be an abandonment of the bill, nor a rejection of its objectives,” he added.
Speaker Bagbin said he remains confident that members would approach the matter he had raised “with wisdom, patriotism, mutual respect, and a shared commitment to the integrity of our parliamentary democracy and the dignity of this House.”
For more news, join The Chronicle Newspaper channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbBSs55E50UqNPvSOm2z
