The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, says Parliament can revisit the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2025, popularly known as the Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill, even after its passage.
According to him, the House has the option of moving a motion to rescind its earlier decision on the Bill.
His comments follow the passage of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill 2025, after which he appealed for its reconsideration.
Speaking during a courtesy call by the Supreme Court 150th Anniversary Planning Committee on Thursday, June 11, Alban Bagbin dismissed claims that Parliament is in a stalemate over the Bill.
“The recent debate where some lawyers came out strongly to say that by the Constitution, once a law is passed on the floor, Parliament is functus officio. It’s not the law. Because we have what we call a passage process before you send it to the President for assent.
He added, “And that process gives the opportunity for Parliament to reflect on what it has passed. And that is why in the Constitution, there is no time limit given to Parliament after passage to submit to the President for assent. And on many occasions, we usually identify some inconsistencies or errors. And then we go back to the House, where they refer to us as the second reconsideration stage. We use the process for recession, a motion of recession to rescind the decision of having read the bill a third time. And then use that to do it. So it’s really not the law that once the Speaker says the bill is read a third time and passed, Parliament is functus officio.”
His comments come after he directed Parliament to reconsider the already passed Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2025, following consultations with the leadership of the House aimed at building a broader consensus around the legislation.
The Speaker on Tuesday, June 2, called for further engagement between the Majority and Minority leadership, raising concerns about the process leading to the bill’s passage.
Bagbin said he was surprised the bill was fully passed on Friday, May 29, noting that he had expected Parliament to begin only the consideration stage before proceedings concluded.
He maintained that the bill, given its public sensitivity and the level of national debate it has generated, requires broader consultation and consensus among stakeholders.
