The Speaker of Parliament has raised concerns over the procedure used to pass the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, calling on Members of Parliament to reconsider the third reading to safeguard the integrity of the House and the Constitution.
In a detailed statement to the House, the Speaker commended the “broad support” from traditional, religious, and civil society groups for a comprehensive law addressing “the changing dynamics of human sexual rights.”
He stressed that the bill touches on “moral conditions, cultural values, constitutional principles and social aspirations,” explaining why it has drawn “widespread public attention.”
Citing official records from Friday, May 26, the Speaker noted that the bill was taken through its final stages “in the night” and subsequently passed.
While he was not presiding at the time, he reminded the House that his office remains “custodian of the integrity, procedure, sanctity and unity” of Parliament.
The Speaker pointed to Standing Orders 171, 172, and 173, which govern amendments and the third reading of bills.
Bagbin explained that Order 172 requires all amendments agreed to during the Consideration Stage to be “captured accurately, appropriately and incorporated,” while Order 173 mandates that the final amended text be made available to members before the third reading.
That, he said, did not happen, adding, “These conditions exist to ensure that members are afforded a meaningful opportunity to know… the exact effects of the bill of which they are called to take a final legislative position,” the Speaker stated.
The Speaker added that the purpose was to permit “further reflection before the House finally commits itself.”
Concerns have also been raised, he noted, that some amendments agreed to at Consideration Stage “do not reflect the position taken by the committee” and were not made available to members in a manner that would allow them to “fully appreciate” the final text before voting. “The proceedings of that day,” he said, did not meet the standard of transparency required.
The Speaker emphasized the global implications of the bill, saying “the eye of the world is on this Parliament.”
He warned that the House must be able to withstand “any legal and constitutional challenges that are sure to come,” and stressed that the authority of any law depends not only on the majority achieved, “but also on the integrity of the process.”
Appealing to the bipartisan character of the bill, the Speaker said it had been presented to the nation as a non-partisan initiative that “represents Parliament at its finest.”
Bagbin argued that legislation of “national importance” should command “not only the numerical support of the majority of members but also the broad confidence of the House.”
To address the procedural gaps, the Speaker urged MPs to “reflect carefully” and consider sending the bill back for further consideration of the final text.
“Such a course, if adopted by the House, will not be an abandonment of the bill nor a rejection of this conviction,” he said.
“Rather, it will represent a reaffirmation of Parliament’s commitment to due process, fidelity to the Constitution, consensus building, transparency and certainty.”
Closing his statement, the Speaker expressed confidence that members would approach the matter “with wisdom and the shared commitment to the integrity of our country’s democracy and the unity of this House.”
He thanked the House and called for reflection in the “larger national interest.”
By Prosper Kwaku Selassy Agbitor
About The Author
