The Vice Chair of the NPP’s Manifesto Committee, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, has said Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia, the New Patriotic Party (NPP) flagbearer, is ready to sign the anti-LGBTQ+ bill into law if it successfully navigates the legal process.
According to him, barring any significant legal issues, Bawumia is fully prepared to endorse the bill.
“Dr. Bawumia has consistently voiced his stance against LGBTQ rights. He’s made it clear that he will back the bill unless there’s a critical legal flaw.
“He has openly declared his anti-LGBTQ stance and is not in favor of any discussions or arguments that advocate for the normalisation or legalisation of LGBTQ activities in Ghana,” myjoyonline,com quoted Oppong Nkrumah.
The Ofoase Ayirebi MP also acknowledged that the bill is currently under litigation, with questions raised about whether it followed the correct legal procedures before its passage.
“It’s being litigated, and I won’t comment on the legality of the bill at this stage. But Dr. Bawumia has made it clear that he is committed to protecting Ghanaian family and cultural values. He is firmly against the promotion of LGBTQ activities in the country,” he added.
In May 2024, Dr. Bawumia reiterated his firm position on the issue, stating that LGBTQ+ activities would not be tolerated in Ghana if he were elected president.
“On the matter of LGBTQ+, I want to say again without any equivocation that we will not allow it in Ghana. It is not going to be allowed. Our Bible says no, our Quran says no, and our people say no. So, no. That is the answer,” Dr. Bawumia declared.
He further added, “No man will be marrying a man, no woman will be marrying a woman. It is not our value. And I will stand firm no matter the consequences. We will safeguard our country, and we will safeguard our people.”
He further clarified that the ongoing litigation against the current bill is centered on procedural issues, particularly whether the Speaker of Parliament made the necessary determinations regarding its impact on the public purse.
“Those who have sued are arguing, among other things, that the Speaker did not make that determination and, therefore, could not have admitted it properly as a private member’s bill for it to be passed. That is one of the issues they are contesting,” he explained.
