HOT🔥"THIS IS LAW NOT EMOTIONS" - EDUDZI CLASHES WITH EGYAPA MERSER OVER LGBTQ+ BILL

追加: 2026-06-04

[00:00:00]And this act that has been passed really serves no purpose whatsoever indeed and in fact not passing a crowd would make a lot of sense because they haven't done anything. Did president asend to the bill? The answer is an overwhelming no. So by reason of law and operation of law that bill cease to exist. Since 1992, has any president ever inherited a bill passed under a previous proponent of the of the previous bill have not changed?

[00:00:35]>> At this point, we are talking about constitutional law.

[00:00:40]No emotions former member of parliament.

[00:00:59]LGBTQ There is nothing you can do to 2023 2024 during the election.

[00:02:19]until it doesn't work now.

[00:02:47]Reintroduction of the bill through the committee.

[00:03:07]form and discuss But there is nothing to write home about about this bill.

[00:03:58]His excellency This time is not about our emotions. We are talking about law. We are speaking about law.

[00:04:20]N PPP, political party MPs committee It's not what the minority are saying, but it's what the law is saying.

[00:05:10]combe.

[00:05:26]You see how we behave as a people as politicians >> is really baffling sometimes because as as I'm concerned in spite of the procedural issues that we had in 2024 when this bill was passed I strongly believe that it was even proper for his excellency president Nana Nadu not to sign this bill cuz it was a lame president and the bill certainly will have implications as it was useful >> for a new president coming in to be the one who takes a decision whether to sign it or not.

[00:06:14]>> A new president coming.

[00:06:16]>> Yes. whether ND or MP >> regardless cuz I recall the fair wages when President Kufur did the single spine salary >> thing on his way out >> the NBC came in and complained that they had been saddled with all this obligation and liability by the previous government >> in the same vein my own thoughts were that it was good that a secular didn't sign the bill in principle we are all agreeable that our sexual values, our traditional values ought to be protected.

[00:06:52]>> The reason why the bill in 2024 passed unanimously, there was no objection by the MPP side, then majority to the passage of this bill. In fact, the sponsors of the bill included people from the MPP side. So there's unanimity >> true >> amongst the entirety of or the generality of the Ghanaian public >> as represent representatives of the people.

[00:07:19]>> Absolutely. That we needed some tightening of our existing leg existing legislation when it came to LGBTQ plus issues because we all agree that it's abhorent.

[00:07:33]we do not have to encourage samesex relationships in uh in our society.

[00:07:41]So of course it became a campaign issue >> right and our friends the NDC promised that when they were given the opportunity to come into office president was going to sign the bill. So the expectation was that immediately he comes in. Those were one of the first things that he was going to undertake.

[00:08:04]Alas, we didn't see that.

[00:08:06]>> We've lived 18 or so or 17 months down the line. Now we see some traction.

[00:08:14]My question really is this that will this watered down legislation that is being proposed or has been passed today will it cure the mischief that we as a society sought to prevent with the passage of the old act.

[00:08:31]Okay, if you will, fine.

[00:08:34]But clearly the deception, >> okay, the the the hypocrisy with respect to the passage of this law is what what beats my my mind.

[00:08:47]If the bill that was passed in 2024 was good enough for the purpose for which it was passed, >> why are we changing it today?

[00:08:56]>> I don't understand. But of course the expectation would have been that the 2024 bill would have been submitted to parliament gone through the motions and the same text is what then is passed.

[00:09:07]>> You mean because we had already done all the work parliament had done the work they had passed the bill into law. It was only left with for the signature of the president >> because of the procedial legal and pro procedural issues didn't sign that bill into law.

[00:09:27]>> Why are we now changing the text today?

[00:09:32]Why why is that important? Because um according to um the majority leader there had been more advocacy, more engagement. those those advocacy was not done in 2024.

[00:09:47]Recall that that bill itself was introduced in parliament in 2021. I was a member of the committee. We did all the stakeholder engagements. All the representations that people had to make make were made. Several memoranda in excess of 200 was submitted to the committee. We did thorough work.

[00:10:05]We needed a law that would bite that would seek to prevent the encouragement of this uh sexual activities that we all abhore from ever coming into our shores. So if you now today believing in the same principle in 2024 turn around and introduce material into the law that seeks to defeat the purpose that the bill itself sought to achieve in the first place. What have you done?

[00:10:40]What have you done? But is it the case that we want a law that would prevent the introduction of LGBTQ++ into our country or that because we promised that when we come we will pass an LGBTQ plus law. We are only passing it for the sake of it without believing that indeed and in fact the mischief that we sought to cure will be cured by this law. Do you think that's what I'm saying?

[00:11:05]>> Do you think that's what >> that's exactly what the NDC are doing?

[00:11:07]>> That's why you use the word watered down. Yes.

[00:11:11]completely. I asked myself, how do you even legislate right to legal representation?

[00:11:19]It's a matter of course a constitutional right.

[00:11:23]How are you going to pre prevent academic freedom?

[00:11:28]It's shined in law already.

[00:11:31]So to now turn around and say that well the law that we passed sought to prohibit people from having right to legal representation and so we are now introducing that as an exception.

[00:11:43]I don't get it.

[00:11:46]But I'm only hoping and praying that the civil society organizations, the Catholics bishops conference, the Christian Council of Ghana, those and the of course the National House of Chiefs, those who champion the passage of this bill, which we all agreed ought to be passed. When the final text comes out, we would interrogate it to determine whether indeed and in fact >> we have been given what we asked for or we've been shortch changed by this government because that's what I see that this government is only seeking to shortch change the people of Ghana by the passage of this watered down legislation purely for political purposes and that they do not really believe that human sexual rights, the traditional sexual rights that we know between man and woman >> ought to be protected in Ghana. So, so your conclusion is that the NDC and the government of John Dummani Mahama just decided to hoodwink Ghana and previously they just otherwise they should pass the text that was passed in 2024 that the champion to sign. Do you think do you think if let's say Dr. Mahmud Ba had won the election and then there were amendments would you would your position have been the same?

[00:13:14]>> Absolutely without a doubt that it should be passed wholesomely.

[00:13:18]>> Wholesome it should be passed wholesome because otherwise we would not achieve the objective that we set out to protect as a country and this act that has been passed really serves no purpose whatsoever. Indeed.

[00:13:32]And in fact, not passing a crown would make a lot of sense >> because they haven't done anything.

[00:13:40]All they've done is to pass the LGBT class plus act in only no effect.

[00:13:50]It does nothing.

[00:13:53]So they're just throwing it out to Ghanaians. We've met our campaign promise. But in substance what they have passed completely defeats the purpose for which the law itself was introduced in the first place.

[00:14:04]>> And it's sad that we do this to ourselves.

[00:14:07]>> Okay. So hypocrisy, double standards, deception, watered down director legal.

[00:14:13]They said that's what you the party and uh your your your party in government did.

[00:14:20]>> Okay. So once again I want >> wink.

[00:14:22]>> I want to say deception. I want to say good morning to my L senior and the trading unionist who is here and also wish my learn senior the deputy attorney general um Dr. Jesai, um, Deputy AG, a happy birthday today.

[00:14:41]Um, I think that said, um, double standards, hypocrisy, deception. None of that applies to the NDC.

[00:14:51]>> Why not?

[00:14:52]>> This morning, my my senior is behaving like how we we used to behave after writing law exams when we begin to remember the cases after the exams. You know >> you mean during the exams you forget >> during the exams you forget and the citations >> sometimes >> it was held in a decided.

[00:15:15]>> So so those days I remember said one of the ways to go around in a decided case >> it was said this without references.

[00:15:25]>> Yes.

[00:15:26]>> And Lorden said this without giving a specific case where Lord said this morning that's what I've seen my senior doing. Look, you see Ghanaians had a benefit of giving you a mandate for eight solid years and not only a mandate but also gave you at least a good enough majority in parliament to be able to carry out your business.

[00:15:52]You had the opportunity to build consensus to as it were pass very useful legislation.

[00:16:00]In fact, this particular legislation is one that was bipartisan support. It had a bipartisan support. But what did we see? We had a president who deliberately decided that he was never going to ascend to the family value bill.

[00:16:28]In fact, that deliberation on the part of former President Nadu will remain a blot on the conscience of the MPP for many years to come.

[00:16:50]That singular decision by President Dan Kufu ostracized completely isolated traditional authority, Christian authority, Muslim authority from the MPP support and that you cannot wish it away this morning by describing whatever happened in the past as being deception.

[00:17:15]There were cases in court and then they decided to take notice of them and and those were in statement from the executive secretary of the president.

[00:17:22]>> Listen carefully.

[00:17:25]He had practiced and we have all witnessed constitutional democracy for 32 years. Never never has the secretary to the president ever in a very arrogant manner written to the the cler of parliament a s and deceased letter that was completely unfortunate and ought to have been condemned.

[00:17:51]What was the basis of the cease and deceit? You and I as lawyers do appreciate that we only write a cease and deceased letter in exceptional circumstances. What was the basis for the cease and deceased letter banana sant? It was on call for arrogantly written and completely condescending.

[00:18:11]That is how you saw governance.

[00:18:14]What was the basis? Look he and that is the learning we have received. The received learning we have is article 106 clause 8 of the 1992 constitution. This is what he says that where the president refuses to ascend to a bill, he shall within 14 days after the refusal state in a memorandum to the speaker any specific provisions of the bill which in his opinion should be reconceeded by parliament including his recommendations for amendment if any. There is a constitutional pathway where a bill has been passed and the president has caused to say that I will not ascend. The constitution itself envision a situation where these things will happen and provided a pathway refused. What has that got to do?

[00:19:19]>> Please, please, please, please, please respect.

[00:19:22]>> We're talking of the blood that was passed.

[00:19:24]>> Decided, decided being the one that was passing today. What has >> decided decided in the full glare of this express constitution provision that you not comply with this constitution?

[00:19:36]>> What has he got to do WITH ANYTHING? AND DECIDED INSTEAD OF having sign, >> you promise to sign this morning. We are speaking of the world that you were talking sit well with the one that in 202 when you were talking please let him so that you make your point >> when the opportunity came the constitution prescribed what you should do send a memo reconsider parliament but what did au father do he decided to write a cease and desist letter to the cler OF PARLIAMENT THAT WAS WHY SHADRACH, do you have um the former executive secretary's letter so that I ask questions because according to it doesn't matter something people >> what was their claim they said there was a PENDING LAWSUIT DOESN'T MATTER >> please please doesn't MATTER you and I had a good surprise to you and I allow him >> you see even out of disrespect to He a Japan who was part of the MPs who passed the law. This cler in fact the the secretary to the president had the air to write to a constitutional office holder the cler of parliament a s and deceas letter. What was the basis for it? And guess what? Guess what Roland President asented to the e law at the time when there was a pending judicial proceeding I was counled for the honorable Samu Ablaka >> the honorable Haruna and the honorable Mahameayar in challenging the e legislation at the supreme court at the time when the matter was at the supreme court that was the same time President Kufu asented to the E Levy law. So at that time when the claim was made that because my brother Richard the last guy was at the court and for that matter the president h ought to be stayed from asing it was just an opportunity but this was even the darker side of the reason why president refused to ascent. Look, I go to Joy Business this morning and there's a story there. Joy business.

[00:22:05]>> What What has business story got to do with LGBTQ?

[00:22:07]>> Yes. And that is where it becomes even more. Joy business news 4th March 2024.

[00:22:13]The Ministry of Finance is raising concerns about the implications of Akuadu potential ascent to the recently passed anti-LGBTQ.

[00:22:27]And this is what the finance ministry said that should president ascend to the act government of Ghana was going to lose an amount of $3.6 billion.

[00:22:43]The darker reason why the Aku administration refused to ascend to the EV law was basically financial money.

[00:22:57]At that time the government of Nado felt that it was proper that his refusal will bring us more money and look the finance minister honorable Aminant in a letter by the ministry of finance this is what they stated in the fivepage document the ministry explained that government of Ghana will lose $600 million budget support $250 million for financial stability fund and it will negatively impact reserves. The point I am making is that all the reason that have been covered this morning as the basis for the refusal had nothing to do with that. It was simply monetary see. So Akuad at that time had the benefit of protecting Ghanaian family values but opted for money.

[00:23:56]He had an election.

[00:23:58]He had an election. HE HAD A CHOICE.

[00:24:02]DECIDE for money or decide to accept.

[00:24:04]And he said I want money.

[00:24:07]But you see I have with me I have with me the second session of the nine parliament of the republic of Ghana report dated April 2026. What is it?

[00:24:21]Report of the committee on constitutional and legal affairs on the human sexual right and family value bill 2025 but then it was submitted in 20 April 2026. This is the conclusion.

[00:24:36]The committee having carefully considered the bill unanimously recommends that this honorable house adopt this report and pass the human sexual rights and family into law in accordance with article 106 of the constitution submitted respectfully.

[00:24:57]Honorable James Enu, vice chairman for constitution. The question then is why is it that you now have in the current bill that has been passed exceptions that were not well pronounced to be exceptions in the previously passed bill in 2024. Edu >> thankfully I have never had the benefit of becoming a member of parliament. He has and I want to prominent member >> and I want to rely on his superior experience as an MP. First of all, when this new bill and he knows by law once a bill is passed and not asented to, it dies without parliament. Is that in doubt? Not. Did President Dodang Kufo ascent to the bill? The answer is an overwhelming no. So by reason of law and operation of law, that bill cease to exist. Since 1992, has any president ever inherited a bill passed under a previous >> Why did the proponents of the of the previous bill have not changed?

[00:26:03]>> At this point, we are talking about constitutional law.

[00:26:08]>> No emotions, >> constitutional law. The received learning is that when parliament passes a bill and the bill did not receive an asset, presidential asset, it dies without parliament that is not in. So by reason of that operation, the bill died and therefore it was reintroduced.

[00:26:33]I will not on this platform even for anything appear to know better than our MPs. So when the matter came a committee comprising NDC MP met at the FA Royal Hotel and in that meeting as part of the committee's engagement they call shr in fact they call the honorable Samuel George nati they call reverend inim forger eman among others guess who the composition of that committee is they respected Hassani, a seasoned lawyer, the manu >> representing the good people of Bushu.

[00:27:22]He was on that committee.

[00:27:24]The honorable very respected man on that committee very prominent lawyers were on that committee.

[00:27:33]>> What's your point with mentioning some of these names? The reason why I'm doing this is that the composition of that committee comprised very seasoned and respected NP legislators and lawyers for that matter including my old friend Patrick Bama.

[00:27:49]They proposed these amendments and just look at the committee report at page page recommendations after careful deliberation. The committee proposed the following proposed amendment is all stated all the amendments.

[00:28:06]>> What's your point with it? That is bipartisan and that because of that representation >> bipartisan somebody will say it's not fair.

[00:28:13]>> Hold on please see this is it. Paragraph 6 recommendations.

[00:28:20]This is the COMMITTEE'S REPORT. SO everything that the MPP minority is complaining about in parliament were proposals that was seconded by their own members of the committee. And in fact at the two end this is what the vice chairman of the committee recommend. He said having carefully considered unanimously recommend what the meaning of unanimity what it means.

[00:28:45]>> Who is the vice chairman of the committee again?

[00:28:47]>> Honorable James West MP. What it means is that there was no minority descent.

[00:28:54]There was no minority report. He knows and he has the experience. When a committee goes and their problem the committee the minority will stay their position if they opposed to it.

[00:29:07]in the absence of any what it means is that the entire committee comprising very seasoned MP legislators propose this amendment and those amendments in the in in fairness to our constitutional democracy were unanimously passed by the house. How in God's name would anybody therefore in the spirit of candle and fairness suggest even remotely that is a question of hypocrisy and watering down the impact of is