Anti-LGBTQ bill passage controversy: The perspective of CSOs and religious stakeholders | PM Express

Añadido: 2026-06-03

[00:00:00]the gap between the interbank rate and the forex bureaus. While banks traded the CD at 10 cities 30 pesos to the dollar, bureaus were trading at 110 or8.

[00:00:33]Yesterday we had the from the majority minority leadership here on the show on the subject of this LGBTQ bill that was passed and we were anticipating some form of a showdown on the floor today because the speaker himself yesterday had said he was surprised that the bill was passed and today he didn't disappoint.

[00:00:54]He then said something that was fascinating in the history of parliamentary procedure. It has thrown this whole conversation into the air. It has become even more controversial than we thought it could be. If you thought yesterday was controversial in the leadup to the today's sitting of parliament, we thought well it couldn't be any more murky. Speaker now today says he was asking the house to reconsider a bill that has already been passed. Is that even possible? It is just the measure of how controversial this matter has become. The previous government couldn't handle it. Was too hot for the president. He sent a seize and desist letter to parliament. It's obvious now that this is again proving too hot to handle for parliament itself. The president already said his own bits on this matter. He also, you know, too hot to handle. He says, well, all manner of options I have if it's too hot for me to handle taking it back to parliament to consider. Parliament itself, it doesn't know what to do with this bill. So really, where is this bill? Remember, it's been passed and the majority leader told us yesterday that although it's been passed, there is the post passage work that needs to happen before it goes to the president for ascent. And it was clear yesterday that maximum two weeks it should be on the desk of the president to to sign the president already said yesterday that there were procedural issues. There were courtroom issues.

[00:02:28]Those views were echoed today amplified by the speaker to the point where he did something really really unprecedented asking for parliament to reconsider a bill that they themselves had passed.

[00:02:41]Very interesting indeed. And so it's telling us a lot and the fight is about these exemptions and yesterday we had them and the minority side say the exemptions that have been created essentially says these categories of individuals and organizations are allowed to promote gay, lesbian, bisexual activities and they will have no consequence under this particular piece of legislation. That is the interpretation of the minority and that it says it defeats the entire purpose of the bill. The majority said that's not the case. You're creating exemptions because of the feedback they got. But it is all in the intention and that if a an academic a professor uh promotes it and the intention is that he simply doing it to promote the activities of LGBTQ in this country that will be caught under the law but the minority says why do you even create that exemption in the first because you're creating a window for all manner of actors to exploit it to promote it and that defeats the purpose and then the concerns then urged that as far as the whole process that led to the passage is concerned is flawed. The speaker has amplified he has given credence to it today by delivering his his ruling on the matter and ending with an appeal. The fascinating thing is the majority leader has said something very interesting that pitches the majority side firmly against the speaker their own speaker that they put up they elected. It is really fascinating and that is why tonight we're not going to be talking to politicians who are debating this and created confusion who have left all of us scratching our heads what's happened. Let's talk to the stakeholders who spent time resources to put to together memorandums and sent to parliament. They've been advocating or they've been opposing on various issues as far as this matter is concerned. What do they make of this? because this is supposed to represent our collective aspirations as Ghanaians. The bill has passed doesn't represent their own views, expectations, uh, and aspirations because they worked on it together.

[00:05:06]These stakeholders worked doesn't represent what they they were hopeful for. What about yourself? So, we're going to ask those questions because of all these concerns. It appears something is fundamentally wrong somewhere that we need to look and will do so. And this is a speaker today raising the lapses and then asking the parliament to revisit.

[00:05:27]The position of the majority side is very clear on the matter and they say no chance in hell we allow a reconsideration of this piece of legislation that has already been passed. We spoke to Muhammad Jerger who leased the majority side and he was very emphatic on the subject. He says the the bill was legally passed. So there's nothing that stops it from now getting to the president's desk to ask. You immediately begin to see the collision that is about to now happen. Interestingly, between the majority side of the president because the president actually also expresses these same concerns that a speaker anchored his ruling on today to ask for a reconsideration of a bill that has already been passed. The president talks about the courtroom question. He talks about the procedural lapses that had come into play. He talked about that and he says he he's aware that the speaker of parliament has issues with it too and will be raising it. And then today he goes to the parliament sits in his his chair and then says reconsider the majority side and by the way the majority leader sits in cabinet chief whip does too. Sometimes they say it has been passed the president in a sense was wrong. That's the point he's making that when he talks about quorum, it's not the case. When he talks about issues, there's nothing like that. Was asked that direct question, he's basically repeats the point and that clearly pitches him against the views by the president. It's fascinating indeed and this bill never ceases to disappoint when it comes to the controversy he can throw up. You need to ask the question at the end though, will this ever be asented to? Will this ever become law in the way it was originally intended by these stakeholders who are joining us tonight for a conversation?

[00:07:20]And you need to take some solace if you're one of the stakeholders who've been pushing for this. In what the president has said before, it was clear if the parliament of the people of Ghana endorses the bill, votes on it, and passes it, these three things have already happened. Parliament or at least according to majority side parliament of the people of Ghana have endorsed the bill. happened Friday they have voted on it and they have passed it so it's clear that don't listen to me listen to the majority leader said these three things has happened the president said these three things happened and it comes to me so now the question is parliament must transmit the bill as part will it that's another big question especially now that the speaker who is the alpha and um in parliament the the parliament's uh standing on this gives similar right have to instruct the the the transmission he doesn't believe that a bill has passed was done procedurally and legally would he agree to instruct the cler to send the bill transmit it to the president so although these three things has happened the president was very clear in a choice of hurts and it comes to me.

[00:08:48]It must go to him. But will it go to him? That is the next big fight that we will see play out in the next few weeks.

[00:08:57]It is going to be very interesting indeed. If it doesn't get to him, he's not signing.

[00:09:03]So, somebody must send to him. The majority side if you listen to them yesterday um the film was here it was very emphatic that they will transmit it and he actually gave timelines for this he says give two week window but considering what has happened today I would not be surprised considering the speaker himself now doesn't believe it was it it ticked all the key legal boxes it's going to be a huge tassle now and the stakeholders must weigh in because they spend their resources their time their their effort their thinking you know caps and they've really invested a lot of effort for years to get us here.

[00:09:39]Are they even satisfied with what the current bill has passed or they agree with the speaker that they must reconsidered? So, some of the exemptions may may be reconsidered. It's very fascinating topic indeed and I'm going to be hearing their thoughts right after this. Stay with me.

[00:10:01]Another week is here on the greatest of all time show. My name is Joe Vanic and tonight TONIGHT WE'RE BRINGING YOU TALENT CONTESTANT NUMBER ONE. LET'S BRING Let's bring here cut.

[00:10:36]>> Oh, there is a leakage.

[00:10:39]>> Where's the problem for quality and durability? Insist on synthetic spice.

[00:10:47]If you want quality where you belong, >> strong tough and reliable. Your perfect match to your trusted sineis they carry water. NO syn if they make water they flow sy >> who is the goat Ghana jalof or Nigerian jalof >> Ghana jalof has no for equal the smell alone. Oh my god.

[00:11:35]You lie now. The same use PUT YOU are lying.

[00:11:49]Forget everybody.

[00:11:52]PUT some respect on the goat.

[00:11:53]>> The goat. The only goat I know lives in Tama.

[00:11:56]>> Every year we GIVE TO YOU BACK. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BEAUTY.

[00:12:07]Though our choice of goats may differ in football, music and jolov always brings us together. Alum experience greatness in every moment.

[00:12:19]Drink responsibly. Not for sale to persons under 18. Not recommended to pregnant women. This advert is FDA approved. Another week is here on the greatest of all time show. My name is Joan and tonight.

[00:12:33]TONIGHT WE'RE BRINGING YOU TALENT CONTESTANT NUMBER ONE. LET'S BRING Let's bring it for cut.

[00:12:50]>> Oh, there is a leakage.

[00:12:53]Where's the problem? For quality and durability, insist on synthetic spice.

[00:13:01]If you want quality where you belong, >> strong tough and reliable. Your perfect match to your trusted sine.

[00:13:11]Satisfy. It carry water. No.

[00:13:16]Satisfy. It make water flow.

[00:13:21]Think fast and you're strong and you're tough.

[00:13:26]>> Another week is here on the greatest of all time show. My name is Joan and tonight TONIGHT WE'RE BRINGING YOU TALENT.

[00:13:38]CONTESTANT NUMBER ONE, LET'S BRING Let's bring you here.

[00:13:49]cut.

[00:13:50]>> Oh, there is a leakage.

[00:13:53]>> Where's diploma? For quality and durability, insist on synthetic spice.

[00:14:01]If you want quality, this beong >> strong tough and reliable. Your perfect match to your trusted synthetic.

[00:14:11]Satisfy it carry water. No.

[00:14:16]Satisfy it. They make water the flow syntax and strong and tough and teapot.

[00:14:39]>> Who is the goat? Ghana jalof or Nigerian jalof.

[00:14:42]>> Ghana jalof has no coal. The smell alone. Oh my god. YOU A LIE. NOW THEY ste you are lying.

[00:15:03]Forget everybody.

[00:15:06]PUT some respect on the goat.

[00:15:07]>> ON THE GOAT. THE ONLY goat I know lives in Tama.

[00:15:10]>> Every year we GIVE TO YOU BACK. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BEAUTY.

[00:15:21]Though our choice of goats may differ in football, music and jolov always brings us together. Alum experience greatness in every moment.

[00:15:33]Drink responsibly. Not for sale to persons under 18. Not recommended to pregnant women. This advert is FDA approved.

[00:15:40]Did you know that Ghana currently spends more than 8 billion Ghana cities annually important food that can be produced locally? That is why this June, Joy Business and the Supermorn Show in partnership with the Federation of Associations of Ghanaian Exporters, FAGE bring you the Joy Agra Business Month 2026 under the theme from soil to sovereignty building Ghana's agricultural self-reliance through innovation. Join us on the Joy Super Morning Show, Joy News and across Joy business platforms for a month-long national conversation on Ghana's food security and agri business future. Week one focuses on government policy, trade, and financing for food sovereignty. Week two explores research, innovation, mechanization, and live coverage of the Ghana Horiculture Expo 2026 from the 11th to the 13th of June of the state house 4C court. Week three examines infrastructure value addition, youth participation, and agricultural financing, while week four highlights opportunities across key horiculture value chains. The final week looks at consumer power and Ghana's road map to food sovereignty by 2030. Stay tuned to Joy FM and Joy News.

[00:16:57]Heat. Heat.

[00:17:28]And thanks for staying with us. PMX as always brought to you by a Cintex tanks.

[00:17:32]It is strong. It is tough. Pepsid cavity to fight the toothpaste and stumb CIB impact series. And if you're looking for a water tank to store water with durability but also long-lasting, then you're simply looking for the tortoise symbol. Once you find that it's your showb that you have found the right quality tank that is strong, it is durable and built to last and to handle the Ghanaian weather rain or shine.

[00:17:56]Syntax tanks is strong tough and before you sleep tonight, please find yourself a pepsin coming to fight and I hope you use it in the morning. Uh and so you have to close it out by using it again before you sleep because it guarantees protection against tooth decay, gum disease and in some cases foul breath.

[00:18:13]Brushing your teeth every morning and night with pepsin and cavity fighter guarantees you the protection that your mouth obviously deserves.

[00:18:24]And the Stanic CIB impact series uh when some see challenges they will see opportunities where others spot risk they unlock value. Stanic corporate and investment banking they will partner for business driving Ghana and Africa's growth. You want to call them on 030-281-5789 to speak to their CIB team or visit them at Stan Bank Stanbank.com.

[00:18:49]GH and get started. My guest joining me tonight is Dr. Michael Augustus Akagwa.

[00:18:55]He's a programs manager at human rights and social inclusion at CD. Michael, thank you very much. You have Adam Senanu. is the chairman of the advocates for Christ and they were very instrumental in the in the advocacy that led to this particular bill. Reverend Father Michael Ku is the director for governance justice and peace at the Ghana Catholics bishop's conference. He also joins us and shik ara shu is a spokesperson for the national chief Imam. Gentlemen, thank you very much uh for agreeing to join us and shake I want to start with you. I want to first get your reaction to what has been unfolding since Friday.

[00:19:35]First there was a passage. Now we've heard that the president had concerns raises corum issues raises administerial administrative and procedural lapses.

[00:19:45]The speaker now has amplified that today asking for the bill as passed to be reconsidered. The majority side say they don't agree and it's nothing in the standing orders and constitution that allows a reconsideration of a bill that has been passed. the minority side claimed that a bill has been watered down. So there's a lot of moving parts on a bill that has been passed. Now I wonder what your reaction is to all that shake.

[00:20:09]I mean thank you so much and uh uh good evening to all your your viewers. Um I think that as as a nation there's no question on regarding our unanimity respect to our position regarding the um anti-LGBT bill. Um it's clear uh both parties have expressed their positions.

[00:20:34]Stakeholders including religious bodies have also stated their positions and the parliament under the former government and even the present one have all debated this issue. Um so it's uh for me a bit disappointing that we have to now subject this matter to another debate after there has been some thorough debate on it and a certain national position had been taken uh on it. What I know is at least procedurally uh procedurally um parliament had passed the bill earlier on. It only needed the presidential accent which by certain legal pro processes was um refused uh the chance to reach the table of the president and so the former president did not sign. So I thought that this one was going to be just a pass through that for us to quicken the pace and get it on the table of the current president. So in accordance with his promise that he will append his signature. So for us to come here where we do not know where we are facing um the minority taking a position the majority taking a position um for me it's it's it's disappointing um to say the least. uh and I hope that we will not uh politicize this matter because this matter that we are dealing with is a non-political matter um from my angle and have been consistent in my debate about this subject matter LGBT in the form whatever form it takes it is an attack on the family institution >> which is a secret unit of society that's why every human being is born into a family made up by male female who give birth to children and from which progenies are produced.

[00:22:31]And so any attempt to promote same sex in my view is to say we are having attacking the very foundation of society.

[00:22:43]And that's the way we must see how how evil how objectionable this matter is.

[00:22:48]And so as a people of culture, uh people of of faith, people of religion, as our nation, um we are unanimous on how evil this matter is. And I think so to turn it into a kind of political debate now uh between the majority and the distant for me to say the least is very disappointing. That's that's my initial >> initial thought. And and then what do you say to where we are now tonight? a bill is passed, but there's a lot of uncertainty now about whether or not it's it's even a bill that is worth transmitting to the president.

[00:23:24]>> Well, let me say that I have uh uh the positive sides and I have the negative sides. The positive if for a second time we have arrived at passing the bill, it just tells you that truly that unamity has always been there.

[00:23:41]um after the first time having to start the whole process again, one would think that it would get stuck somewhere. But to the extent that they completed uh the same thing a second time, this tells you that uh there is that consensus in general the issue. Now the part that is uh questionable for me is how come the house of procedures and records uh could could get it wrong? how would they not recognize that certain steps had not been followed or the Quran was not there? Uh that that raises alarms for me. Uh but even beyond that, I mean I took a look at the new version and then especially the exemptions. Uh the the exemptions is one in particular that gets me worried. So already in my mind, even if it had gone on to the president, the the likelihood we're going to appeal to the president that listen, looking at article 106, there's at least one of those exemptions looking at uh the non-governmental organizations and what is is not tight. It's it's it provides a lacuna for the kind of uh information we don't want to be out there. And so we would still have required that this must come back to parliament. uh to be very clear, let's quantify the type of information you're talking about so that when it when there's a case and we go to court, it could be clear whether there is intent uh to do something that breaches the law or not. So the positive side is that we have arrived at where we ended the last time. Uh it's only between parliament and the president. If there are a few things they need to resolve, uh they need to get their house in order, resolve them and move on. Uh the bad side is that the issues coming up are things that ideally should not even have occurred. Whether it is a quorum issue, whether it's a process issue, uh whether it is exemptions that have not been properly crafted and are providing lacunes, these are concerns that we need to address.

[00:25:41]>> Yeah. And and I want to bring in father now. Reverend father, I know you've monitored this very closely. Uh first, just like the initial comments I've heard, give me your reaction to the state of play as you speak tonight.

[00:25:55]Yes, my my my own um response is not is not very different from uh your previous um you know contributors. I think that uh there's there's there's there's quite a bit of disappointment as to where we are now.

[00:26:14]uh because uh even if there was the need uh to uh review the the the content of what had been agreed on in the previous parliament, one would have thought that what was going to be done would still carry the the intention and the will of the people of Ghana along uh so that uh it wouldn't be necessary to accuse of having been watered down.

[00:26:47]Um we we have heard uh from various quarters of of of the possibility of pressure uh from from from various external forces and even within uh to make sure that the the the the bill as passed or as would be passed would not carry the same bite as as would would carry the the intention and the will of the majority of the Ghanaian people. So the disappointment is is about all of this and and it doesn't help that um the the the the speaker of parliament um tells us that he gave specific instruction as to how uh parliament was supposed to be dealing with the matter in his absence. M he he said that his direction was for for the matter to be considered but not necessarily for it to to reach the the the the level that it did. Now if if that is true and I I believe the the the right honorable speaker of parliament then then what was the the business of of of parliament in proceeding in the way it did? Um they they say they say the devil is in the detail and and so and so I think that it is important that all the the various uh voices which have have arisen since it its passage are listened to. If in fact um those um compromises which which seem to have been made in fact uh compromise the the the the heft and then and then the actual intention of of the of the of the bill. Well then then then why not go back to the drawing board and and deal with it in in a way that actually carry good. Let us go back to the drawing board and to make sure that the all the concerns um are taken into into account and and properly addressed so that that which eventually is is brought to the president for ascent will actually represent the expressed collective will of the is not only not acceptable that it is against the established you know an expressed will of the Ghanaian people.

[00:29:02]>> Yeah. And I want to bring in Dr. Augustus Michael Cargo with the CDD and and CD they represented a very small group that took a position against the overwe majority of groups that were sending memorandums. They actually objected to many of the provisions in this particular bill. Um Dr. August. So now that this bill has been passed, it the sense that we got before this time was that there was consensus in parliament on this matter. There's consensus across the country and so that were reflected that should be reflected in parliament among on the political uh divide. But what tends what has happened now is that it this bill in this latest incarnation has divided with the NDC and NPP to the point where the NPP washed their hands off it. the NDC have passed it. They don't we don't have the the the buying of the minority. Part of the reason why the speaker says he needs to build consensus. Does that vindicate your position that this is far more complex that it was it was made to look before now that there was consensus on this and everybody wanted it. Clearly, we've seen now that the issues are not as straightforward.

[00:30:20]Uh Evans uh thank you uh for having me on the show this evening and uh good evening to the other uh panelist. Uh also good evening to your uh listening audience. Um but before I even attempt to answer the uh give you a response to your question um I would have just like to say that uh you know I I I'm actually a steering committee member of the affirmative action coalition that pass affirmative action uh work to pass affirmative action law and it would have been great to have some representation of uh female voices in this conversation this evening. Um so just just on a side note that I would have loved to see some female representation um uh in this discussion. Um but to answer your question I think our position I feel some somehow uh vindicated um because uh when something is morally just or when something is morally right it is less complicated and does not lead to confusion. uh you having a you are having a bill that is supposed to solve a moral problem that is itself stuck in the moral quagmire that tells you a lot about about the bill itself. It tells you that the bill does not have the the same level of consensus that we think it has. um discounting the um discounting whether the exemptions or not, our position has been clear from the beginning grounded in the spirit of uh of the fundamental principles of right of the constitution that this bill violates rights of Ghanaian citizens and that has been our position. So discounting the um the uh the exemptions made we still think that the bill still is unconstitutional. It violates rights of Ghanaian citizens. Chapter 12 of the constit 12 the constitution is clear.

[00:32:10]All Ghana the constitution does not break itself into pass to give special provisions or special uh special provisions to any specific Ghanaian. So to write a law that seeks to particularize um and separate a certain group of people separate for punishment just because we don't like who they are is a violation of the rights and it's very clear in uh in the conversation that I I I I feel like a lot of time when we come to this conversation we are not grounding the issue in constitutionalism in the law we are grounding this conversations in religion. I I hear your panel on the three panel all coming from the same space the religious space. We are a circular state and the constitution operates in the circular manner and the constitution requires that we do not make any special provisions that violate any other person's right either on the basis of religion. So we need to look at this thing very well. I think that our position has been very clear from the beginning. Um that we oppose this bill in its entirety because it violates the spirits of the constitution. And do you and you do you still oppose it in its entirety considering that the explanations that we've heard from the majority side for then including these exemptions and I want to go to the exemptions exemptions of legal representation court submissions parliamentary submissions commission of inquiry academic opinions um scientific opinions medical opinions public health programs journalism and yesterday we heard the bit from the majority leader is that they bet on the NGOs and development partners. They they stood it down um on Friday before they passed it. There wasn't consensus on that. So, that was taken out. But these exemptions, are they not enough to get your buying now into this bill?

[00:34:10]>> No, they're not. Uh because to be honest with you, um we are not a reading people and that's a fact. um the the the uh the data is showing that we do not read. So it is not so much about exemptions.

[00:34:26]Despite the exemption, this is still a dangerous law, a dangerous bill should it become law because the majority of people who are going to act on the basis of a law that has passed will not will be ignorant of the content of the bill or the law. Just knowing that a law has passed is licensed enough for people to violate the rights of other people whether they know what is in the law or not for because the social construction of most people is that a law has passed.

[00:34:55]Look, I could give you a quick example.

[00:34:57]The traffic act we have somehows them they have certain rights that they they should be able to assert with the police. Most people don't even know and we see police we see I'm sorry to use the police example but we see the story.

[00:35:09]It's not so right for me that we're making exemptions. It's not right for me that you put on the static book a law that people would not know, would not understand. And I'll bring Edison to respond to that for me. Adam, let's go to some of the specifics of this bill as passed by parliament. There's controversy around it, but we the bill has been passed by parliament. This bill, the minority claims, is a watered down version of what was submitted to Aku to to sign primarily because of the exemptions. Yesterday, one of the lead legal spokespersons was on the show and said the exemptions mean that the the the bodies and organizations that have been exempted can actually provoked LGBTQ and they will not be subject to the penalties under this particular law.

[00:35:59]That's their interpretation of it. Give me your reaction to that if based on what you've seen so far. Are you happy with the bill as passed?

[00:36:13]Well, to the extent that the one on the NGO and public uh institutions has been removed, I was satisfied with the rest because the word is what is important.

[00:36:27]there was a clear quality of uh a descriptor to indicate if they saying uh for example um talking about legal advice. So legal you can check is this something legal or not um and if the person has the intent of providing information which is not legal it can be tested factually and a conclusion drawn. Um if you look at uh and I'm just trying to find the or scientific nature >> scientific is clear you'll be able to look at the research data and establish whether this was work done and so it's not a question of speculation or doing something that intentionally wants to create confusion. There was a medical provision of medical surgical psychological or counseling services.

[00:37:16]These are all things that you can test.

[00:37:18]If you come to news or current affairs again it's something you can test factually trying to pick up content that problems with the people we have problems with the practices and we need to understand that and because these are people who are friends they are family so for all of them listed there there was no challenge except for the one that for me in my mind the dissemination of information by uh governmental bodies nongover that was too loose If you said the dismission of research information or scientific information then we can check and to the extent that there's some issue of are you trying to promote something that is not you know wellounded it can be tested in a court the data can be looked at. So in my mind uh honestly I think that it is the principle that counts. We want to send a message that certain actions will not be acceptable. It is not about the number of years. It's not about that. It's not about uh um people being exempt or not.

[00:38:23]The question is even if they exempted can we check whether that exemption is being applied in a manner that does not undermine the social ethos and what we believe in. Uh so but by and large I think that the work done it's a consensus building process. I think that we've had to do the give and take. It's a refining process. I think that we've come a long way. Probably one or two things need to be tightened up.

[00:38:50]>> I am not entirely dissatisfied with the product as I see just one element if you ask me. Oh, and and Reverend, do you agree with the minority when they say the bill has passed is a watered down version, has watered down the the essence of the bill and had fundamentally taken away the real reason why he needed it, which was to stop the promotion and that once you create an exemption for a certain category of people who can promote and not be sanctioned, that is the interpretation, then you have actually not done what you were hoping for. Do you agree with that view?

[00:39:28]>> I I think that the the key uh to understanding um where we stand on the matter is the intervention of the speaker of parliament.

[00:39:41]>> Mhm. And I think that the fact that he called the leadership of parliament to his office um to to to find consensus tells us that consensus um was not found or at least that it was not expressed in in how the the whole process has has ended. and and that it itself must lend itself to uh asking um questions. Uh in fact what we have right now will it will it will it get us to where we want to be? I would I would rather h the the process where the the speaker of parliament has has convened parliament and the leader people of parliament uh to uh reconsider uh what has been done and and to arrive at some consensus is is actually adhered to uh because >> so so you so you are so just just for clarity you are in favor of reconsidering the passage.

[00:40:49]>> Yes, I am. I'm I'm I'm because you see I think that it's not just a matter of procedure. Procedure is important but al also also there's a reason why the issue has become this contentious.

[00:41:02]If if if the there wasn't a a serious reason uh for sort of a sticking point I I would have thought that the speaker of parliament would then have said well look this is just a matter of procedure so let us let us deal with it. I am sure he's he's he's considered both sides and and seen that it it it it would be better for the nation if both sides came back to the table to agree on something that appears not to have been agreed upon already.

[00:41:33]So I I I I am I'm I'm rather for uh the position of of the speaker of parliament. Let let let let the two uh parties go back uh to what I think he will direct and and and and see how that helps both parties come closer to to something that is is is is more um you know um likely to garner the support of the majority of of Ghanaians.

[00:41:59]>> Yeah. The the minority reaction to you will be you wanted this passed ASAP. You were disappointed when it was passed in a sent to by the last president and you wanted a pass. In fact, the last time we did a show a few weeks back, your boss who I hosted as part of the panel was clear that if it is not passed and they delay further, it will have political consequences and that the Christian community will punish this current government if he fails to to do the needful and pass it. They have passed it and yet to say reconsider a passage. I I I think I think when when my my boss spoke and which I listened to, I I think I think his interest was not merely in the in in in in the expeditiousness of it which was was was part of of his concerns, but also that that which was done. So it was both speed speed and if you want accuracy.

[00:42:57]So it it was both both how quickly it was done. But that also that what what that which was passed um was commensurate with the the the expressed will and intent in intention of the the majority of of of Ghanaian people.

[00:43:12]>> Is it your view then that what has been it your view that what has been passed is not the express will of the majority of the people.

[00:43:20]What I'll say is that um with the concerns which have been raised, it is it is only fair it is only fair that we we we pay attention to them uh because these these members of of parliament both majority and minority have been have been elected uh to to represent h their constituents and if you want together to represent uh the the the whole nation. So if if some some section of of of these elected members of of of of parliament feel that there needs to be a a reconsideration of the matter, why not? Unless unless for instance uh we we are just dealing with uh issues of of of numbers or political position. Um so I don't want it to be NDC and NP because I think the conversation is bigger than bigger than that. The the the question is that um what what they have to tell us whether because when during the process from from we are saying about five years ago now when the process began um various various parts of of of the of of of our nation con constituents of our nation were were contacted for for for input considered input and and we are hoping that that which is which is couched in law actually represent what we ask them to consider. So for me that is that is the the cracks of the matter.

[00:44:42]>> And so maybe maybe maybe if if there was there was there was an MP on on this panel I would ask him honestly if they feel that what they have you know passed actually captures what we said they should consider. I I can answer that for you because I hosted the two leaders here yesterday. The NDC side, the majority side say what was passed represents the aspirations, the express aspirations, beliefs and values of the people of Ghana. They have unequivocal about that and that they had to entertain the they all the exemption they created was because of the feedback they got from the likes of CD and Amnesty International and they have to put that in to to satisfy the constitutional hedles. And then if you talk to the PPP, if you ask that same question to the MP, they'll tell you that what you said is exactly what it is. That is it doesn't represent what was originally uh encapsulated in the aspirations of Ghanaians in terms of our values and that is why they they wash your hands off it and they back the speaker's position. So depending on who you ask, you'll get two different answers. Let me ask quickly before before I bring in shake. Uh Adam, do you agree with your friend Cathish conference rep that a reconsideration of the bill is is the way to go although it's been passed very briefly? Well, honestly, I think that I'll align with him that um I mean consensus building and I mean obviously as you understand those of us who do work with uh institutions and at the international level uh you are groomed to understand that consensus building always gets you the best result and it's true uh we say participation leads to inclusion inclusion leads to ownership and from that perspective if the speaker believes that there is a procedural issue that needs to be addressed uh there are content issues that could be done better and if there is that space within the uh framework the legal framework or the rules of parliament to allow that to happen I definitely will go along with that >> but that will delay this process it will delay this process you know how long it takes to get here >> no it doesn't matter we've we've taken this long to get here just addressing one or two things to carry more people along is a much more strategic way of going about it than trying to ignore them anyone who has movements and deals with advocacy will tell you if you have opportunity to get other segments uh constituencies on board make that effort to that extent our align with the speaker if he knows that within the framework and rules of parliament this is possible let's give them that opportunity because in any case uh if it had gotten to the president and we had found that some of those exemptions were not tight enough we're going to appeal we're going to have to ask the president please don't just pass this in our century uh add a memo, send it back, make sure it addresses the values that we want protected. So I think that there is space if the the speaker can do this to get the parties to speak and let's get a common position on the matter.

[00:47:44]>> Okay. Fascinating positions there.

[00:47:46]Shake. Do you agree with those?

[00:47:49]>> Um yeah before I before I come to that I mean there is this notion about the secular nature of our country and so therefore such matters should not be viewed from the angle of of religion. I think it is not a good position to take because even though Ghana is a in fact being a secular country that's not is not in synonymous of being godlessness that fact need to be made being a secular country is not synonymous to being godlessness that's why in our con we begin by in the name of the almighty god that is why in our court we swear with the with the religious symbols that is why in in our national anthem we begin by by by starting in the name of god That's why in our national pledge we end up by saying so help me God. That's why when we swear people into office we end up saying so help me God. The question the consciousness of God is deep among Ghanaians. And that's why we are Muslims we are Christians. We are traditional people. Majority overwhelming majority of us have a position which is so clear on on unequivocal when it comes to matters of LGBT. So we need to be careful how we position uh this matter.

[00:49:01]Second um secondly there's not there's nothing wrong whenever there is a certain disagreement about a subject matter and the reason for which we have to sit down again. So I will I will go with the position of the right honorable speaker that there are still issues to be addressed and those addressed so that those those issues when addressed will will be in conformity with the very objective meaning and purpose of the bill because the bill has a meaning has a purpose and that is why there was a consensus be among 275 members of parliament.

[00:49:42]In fact, representing the whole of of the nation under the previous parliament, there was overwhelming agreement.

[00:49:50]That is why that is why the the the bill having been passed was supposed to go to the the president. We were we felt disappointed that it it never got there.

[00:50:01]And so we thought that from here we have all been one on the same page regarding this. Why are we now coming back to subject this matter to to to another wave of debate? But be that at this may if the speaker and the speaker's position for me gives me hope rather than canceling the whole thing and terminating the discussion but he says let's go back for another consideration.

[00:50:27]For me it is respectful to the majority of the of the of the citizens of of the country and it gives us um hope. But my final point is some of the exemptions represent contradictions. You see this is a practice that is aborant in our consciousness, in our belief, in our culture, something we we disagree with and and yet in matters of dealing with it, addressing it, you allow the promotional promotional activity of it.

[00:50:58]So it's like you say you don't agree you don't like LGBT but you allow a certain home home teacher to come to your home and begin to teach your child and promote him and orient him toward towards it completely contradictory completely contradictory. So if you are a parent, a parent whom who abhors the practice but at the same time a teacher comes to your home and you allow him to orient your child towards it.

[00:51:33]Secondly, when you are a doctor and yes, you say you are in your profession and a young girl comes to say I am a female but I have a feeling that I'm a male so do transformational surgery on me and tell me to become a male. That is what we are talking about.

[00:51:56]We we we believe in only two gender.

[00:51:59]Only two gender. That is the basis of family formation. And every human being was born in no human being was born into into space. And there is a certain danger of a certain philosophy of postum future which is being promoted.

[00:52:15]Posthuman future which has been promoted where it a time will come where the position of the human being is not what matters. Again that philosophy is what is underpinning this whole idea and I think that as a nation we must be strong in our voices against the practice and laws are made in order to deal with problems >> and there are element of culture in it and so if it requires that we go back again and sit as been proposed by the by the by the speaker of parliament And I think that for me it is not a bad thing.

[00:52:56]It gives us hope. It will give us an opportunity to reflect deeply into it again. So that when we enact the law, the law will be something that we all have have accepted. I think that for me that's the way I feel.

[00:53:08]>> Shake to be clear. So you are opposed to the exemptions.

[00:53:14]I'm opposed to the exemp maybe maybe a section of the exemptions especially attempting to to do promotional activity on the media. So if you tell me because you are a media person, okay, that is your profession and so you can sit down on the television and engage in promotional activity do advocacy.

[00:53:37]It it undermines completely and it makes nonsense completely of the law completely. It makes nonsense completely of the law. And that's why we are saying that let's tighten it in such a way that we don't contradict ourselves. It's something so aborant, objectionable, something that in our conscience, in our culture, in our values, we uphold >> as a nation.

[00:54:03]>> That is that that is the way I did. So I go with the with the with the with the speaker's position.

[00:54:08]>> Okay.

[00:54:09]>> If so that we so that we water down the political divide, >> okay, >> and come on the page but also stick together. But but but also apart from the reconsideration of the passage allowing for consensus is it your your expectation that during this reconsideration phase if indeed it happens these exemptions are removed is that what you're hoping for?

[00:54:36]>> I'm hope I'm hoping even if they are not completely removed they'll be so modified in such a way that it answers to the question of why we have come out with this law. It will respond to it adequately and let me use the word adequately. It will answer adequately as to why what is our philosophy what is our feeling as a nation that we have made this issue about a broad and a huge matter for political debate during the electionary period. It was a priority.

[00:55:09]It was a priority for all those in fact it was a subject of debate.

[00:55:16]How come did we allow this matter to become a sub debate and outside of election period we are dealing with it?

[00:55:23]We have to be brutally honest with ourselves.

[00:55:26]>> We have to be brutally and sincere in the way that we are dealing with with this matter.

[00:55:31]>> Yeah. I mean let me bring it quickly.

[00:55:32]Adam you had said before by the way you had said before that as far as exemptions are concerned your main concern was the NOS's and the development partners that was included and now we know from what told us yesterday that on Friday that wasn't carried and so it was it was left out what was left in was the health bit the academic bit the court legal representation bit the journalism bit you've heard the alarm and the warnings that the shake is giving that there's a slippery slope here you need We need to redo this. Um, you agree with him?

[00:56:07]>> Well, yes. I, you know, until we see the final document, we are at risk. I agree with Shik. I mean, uh, even the version I saw, I couldn't tell whether is this the final or not. So, what I'm looking at and I'm worried about is there something else I should be worried about. So the most important thing is that by the time we see the final document, the exemptions do not provide a lapa which will be exploited by the very persons to do the things we don't want to see. So he's absolutely right until we get properly crafted even if you're going to leave some of the exemptions and honestly I don't think any of us is against exemptions to the extent that those exemptions don't begin to provide opportunity to undermine what we want to achieve. So it's not it's not about that. Uh but exemptions must be clearly spelt out so that everyone who looks at it can say this is not going to create a problem for us. To that extent I agree totally with shake and I also want to add to what shake was saying about the religious comment that Dr. Kabu was saying. Listen advocates for Christ didn't submit a single religious paper.

[00:57:12]We are professionals that have a scientific group, public health group, legal group and and so and so forth. We submitted four papers. One was scientific to look at the fact that the research has shown that there is no there is no gauging. We accumulated all the data put there. There is no gauging.

[00:57:30]We looked at public health to show how the medical complications of this community create great cost and not just that their lifespans reduce by approximately 30 years. We provided a legal argument to show how from the international to the local this must be considered. and we looked at the historical issues. So Dr. Kabo should not sit there and just assume and say that all of us coming to it from a religious ang that is not a fact.

[00:57:56]>> I mean do give me a quick reaction to that but whilst you do that also are you in favor are you in favor of the reconsideration then >> uh if um thank you for getting back to me but I think you have kept me out in the world and it's too long. I think the conversation had uh there were so many things I' wanted to respond to.

[00:58:13]>> Please do that. Please please please do that. Google straight to them and and I'm sure you've made notes so you can deal with it.

[00:58:19]>> Let me let me I'm I'm not a lawyer but I still I think that uh based on uh maybe what the majority speaker was saying I I believe that the recourse uh option is not it may be something the speaker is not going to be able to use um in this instance considering that the the bill has already passed the house. That's my lay man understanding of of of of that.

[00:58:42]But um let me circle back to um something that shake has said and also Adam has said look I've been socialized since I was a child that God makes no mistakes right um so when we talk about the two genders and we are proudly articulating that in conversation then I asked you then what do we make of people who have both genitalia um isn't is that a mistake of God then to say that somebody is born with both organs of male and female so why do you place that person is that person a man or a woman.

[00:59:15]Okay. So that issue of having this binary straight binary uh distinction of men and women male and female it's not it's a it's a it's a social construct of of science. It's science that has created that binary. It's not God who created that binary. Okay. So we need to step back and and take that into consideration. Secondly, on the issue of the god in the constitution, I'm sure I will have to disagree with you. You know the the the issue the fact that the constitu prayer most begins with god and you end with a prayer. The constitution doesn't tell any one of us here which god it is referring to in in the constitution. It leaves it to you the individual to decide whatever god it is. the use of God in the constitution. It's a generic it's in it generic form leaving it to us as free individual citizens to decide what god means to us. It doesn't tell us whether the god of Muhammad is the god of Christians is the god of whatever it just says god. So any subjective imposition is coming from each from our own phological experiences of who we think that God is. The constitution and I stand by it is a secular document. We may be a polaristic religious society but the state is not a society. We need to make that distinction. We keep imposing these ethos and realities of the society on the state and think that the state is the society. The state is not a society. The state is a bureaucratic system. a bureaucratic organization that runs on some very some principles. You maybe have to read a work of verb to understand what bureaucracy see what bureaucracy is and it tells you the state functions in a bure bureaucratic uh h um uh um a bureaucratic orientation. Meaning that when you are working in the state when you are being elected to parliament and you have to make decisions in a secular society your personal procities of religion or faith should not interfere in making decisions that affect people who may not have the same. You you think you think parliament in considering they will allow the the rel religions the religious affiliations >> politicians to crowd this >> it be obvious that our political class are afraid of the religious people and I'm I'm surprised because I don't see how in a secular state where power wrecks with the political system that our religious elites are the one pushing the agenda of state. So our politicians are very much afraid of our religious people. That beside the point um when um when we talk about activities and and I want to come back to uh um uh Adam so we talk about activities is LGBTQ is an activity >> I never talked about activity >> I never thought I never use the word activity >> you let's take a word for a practice what is is LGBT a practice >> are you asking me a question >> yes I'm asking you is is LGBT your practice >> please. They are different. No, hold on.

[01:02:20]>> And I'm saying that I I allow the question. I'm not supposed to but allow it. Let him answer then.

[01:02:27]>> Okay.

[01:02:29]Um I see a series of different practices.

[01:02:33]>> When you hear LGBT, you see different practices. So just because I stand out and say I am a gay person automatically I have committed a crime for which reason I should be I should be arrested.

[01:02:46]Is that your understand?

[01:02:47]>> How does practice connect with law or or arrest? I haven't made any connection between practice.

[01:02:52]>> But the bill you are supporting has in there that if I hold out which means that if I just say that I am gay I should be arrested. That is the law.

[01:03:03]That's the law you are supporting. I don't understand. I'm talking about practice. What has when you say we need to make so you see you need to make a distinction between homosexuality as a practice or an act from an identity construct. These are two different things and I think we conflate this issue.

[01:03:19]>> You talk about homosexuality.

[01:03:22]>> You started with LGBTQ not homosexuality. So why are you moving to a different mean by LGBT practices then?

[01:03:30]>> I have never talked about LGBT practices. I said I see a series of practices.

[01:03:36]>> Can you mention some >> uh Evans please? Question.

[01:03:42]>> No. No. I mean no no I mean no no I mean the the essence of this is is to debate and get people to because really the reason why CC had this conversation there's a lot of confusion out there >> and the politicians and just second the politicians haven't helped with the back and forth. So any dialogue that promotes elucidation I encourage. So if there is an answer to the questions asking that can help somebody understand this better.

[01:04:11]>> It it's I encourage it. So if there is fantastic that's why I'm quiet. I'm allowing the questions and and the answers and the responses to go on so that hopefully there's some clarity for somebody and and so for us it is not rowdy.

[01:04:23]>> I encourage it. So Adam, if you have a response I take it. If not, he can proceed to make his substantive point.

[01:04:30]>> I think he should proceed to make his point. Okay. Yeah.

[01:04:34]>> So, uh and and I'm saying this because we suffer from a problem of conflation.

[01:04:39]We conflate an act with an identity. Assuming and presuming in the process that to automatically have that identity is to mean that you are automatically automatically engaging in an act which is unlawful by law if that is what would argument is but that is a really flawed way of understanding the conversation. So when I ask all the time what do we even mean by LGBT rights? I mean I could ask any of the panel there right now to tell me what do they even understand by LGBT rights and everybody will tell you Shakes was making the point that you have somebody come to teach your children orient them test towards certain things and I keep asking I'm sitting here I'm asking what things are we orienting the children to what is he even talking about because >> it's homosexuality it's lesbianism >> GUESS WHAT LET'S BE EXPLICIT let's be all the concept is a conglomerate of concepts That's what they call it LGBTQ plus but we don't know even where it's going to end. It's to infinity.

[01:05:44]>> That is a practice which is not good.

[01:05:49]>> You you mentioned the teacher coming to your home because that is one of the exempted areas academic uh you know the academic realm and then orient your child to LGBTQ is these these letters are are explicit. What does LL mean?

[01:06:05]lesbianism, gay gayism, that's that's clear. I MEAN, ALL ALL THOSE THINGS, UH, TRANSGENDER, all those things, my brother, what are we we know in other countries, we don't have we don't have to look for a what you call a dictionary definition for these things.

[01:06:26]They are prevalent practices. We have to be honest with ourselves. Let's be honest with with ourselves. These are practices and we are saying it look we we in Ghana here we you if you are less conscious of religion I have no problem um with that but we use God in a generic sense and that is where is our meeting point the Christian believe in a certain living being and as a nation we are always so strong in this kind of belief and that's why I'm saying that when we say we are secular. It does not necessarily mean that we are godless people. And that is why even our parliament begins session with a certain prayer by invoking the name of God. And we want to remain committed to that God that whose name we invoke in everything that we do.

[01:07:20]>> That is it.

[01:07:22]Let me come back. We are looking for a new definition. We looking for a new definition in a certain certain it is a prevalent practice. Let me just >> let me come up. But but do but but do the issues you've raising tonight are issues that have been canvased for years as part of the consideration of this particular piece of legislation. It has been passed now. It is just waiting for tidying up post passage. It is too late, is it not? Unless you then agree with the speaker that you to reconsider it.

[01:07:56]But if you know the speaker's position on the matter, he's not reconsidering it to to re to include your thoughts. He's reconsidering it to build consensus around the criminalization of the act and the practice.

[01:08:10]>> Yes, I will always stand on the on the side of right and whether whether it's expedient to me or not, I will always stand on the side of right. And my my belief is that as a student of constitutionalism, as a student of democracy, as a student of human rights, I say this and I say this um I going to repeat it. When the rights of a single Ghanaian is violated, all of our rights are violated.

[01:08:37]And we need to keep that into consideration >> that rights are not things we tinker with because we have personal biases towards who people are or because we have issues with how somebody lives their lives. Look, I hear all this talk.

[01:08:52]I mean, it's just like so it's just so much heavy on religion. Even the moral aspect of it. Look, we we are such a religious people and yet we are so morally bankrupt. Look at the level of corruption in our country. Look at the level of crap that goes on and things that goes on in our country. Where is the religion solving those problems?

[01:09:12]Okay. So now we take this whole new enterprise LGBT. Somehow everybody assumes that an identity construction should be made illegal and that is why I kept asking what do they mean by LGBT.

[01:09:25]Yes, I know the conversation has gone on for years. Um but as somebody who has done studies in that space myself I I think I do have either you are talking about the prohibition of an act. The law even says that when you when you have when you have a law what does law punish? Law punish actions acts committed. The law does not in any way punish somebody for an identity he holds.

[01:09:49]>> Yeah. No, but but but but it's already written in our laws that that clearly prohibits uh >> that is why I'm coming to canal knowledge or natural canal knowledge.

[01:10:00]>> If there was ever the need for any look at the bill that had just passed parliament, right?

[01:10:05]>> They could have just taken that bill and done an an amendment to the section 104 in the criminal in the criminal uh offense act. That is all they could have done. Just take what they thought they had.

[01:10:17]>> No, but that one you agree with that.

[01:10:19]>> I'm not saying I'm not saying I contradict the position.

[01:10:22]>> But you know what the criminal I have an answer for the criminal I'll come I'll come I'll come to you I'll come to you please please wrap up wrap up for me.

[01:10:34]Let me get the thoughts off.

[01:10:35]>> The criminal code does not confer rights. The criminal code is subject to the provisions of the constitution. That is why even when you arrest an armed robber you still the armed robber doesn't lose all right they still gain some rights even when you arrest them.

[01:10:52]So the criminal code is not a confer of rights. So when we start and we say it is against our law. Yes it is against our law but that law is not a conferral of rights. That law just says that we prohibit certain actions and if you are caught in these actions the law will deal with you. But the law doesn't say that you lose your right as a citizen because you engage in that action. But are you suggesting that? Are you suggesting the bill as passed takes away your rights?

[01:11:18]>> Yes, the bill takes away I MEAN IF IF I CAN GET arrested for just saying I'm gay that takes off my right of of self for just saying that I'm gay I could go to prison.

[01:11:29]What kind of right violation?

[01:11:30]>> Okay, I need to go for a break. But Adam, you have a quick response.

[01:11:34]>> Yeah. Yeah. I'm saying so for example, you know, you have Christians who will be saying I'm a practicing Christian or not. practicing Catholic or not, a practicing Muslim or not. So the fact that I say I am Christian, that does does not automatically mean that I'm doing something. The fact that somebody says I'm gay cannot itself lend to the person being arrested because until you do additional investigation and conclude that A or B has happened. So the assumption that as soon as you say you are gay, you're going to be arrested. I think it's a fallacy. That's the first thing I need to say. Second thing, so please let him no just a second point. Allow him to make the point. Yeah, >> let me finish. You are jumping to conclusions. Uh uh somebody saying he's gay does not automatically lead to the fact that they there's something going on, there's a practice going on, therefore the person should be incarcerated. Second thing, the idea that genitalia is the only thing that is is an indicator that determines the binary issues we are talking about is false. the scientific uh evidence is that one looks at the hormonal conditions of the people to draw conclusions. So to just assume that oh uh when there is no genitalia what did god do I I think that you need maybe some scientific background also into these things then you can speak authoritatively about it. Thank you.

[01:12:53]>> Okay. I I want to take a when I return I would we'll hear from the president and get all of your reactions to him. Did he introduce an element of doubt about whether or not he will sign this bill as passed when he spoke yesterday in the UK? We'll hear him and then get your thoughts on that after this.

[01:13:24]Did you know that Ghana currently spends more than 8 billion Ghana cities annually important food that can be produced locally? That is why this June, Joy Business and the Supermorning Show in partnership with the Federation of Associations of Ghanaian Exporters, FAGE, bring you the Joy Agra Business Month 2026 under the theme from soil to sovereignty building Ghana's agricultural self-reliance through innovation. Join us on the Joy Super Morning Show, Joy News, and across Joy business platforms for a month-long national conversation on Ghana's food security and agri business future. Week one focuses on government policy, trade, and financing for food sovereignty. Week two explores research, innovation, mechanization, and live coverage of the Ghana Horiculture Expo 2026 from the 11th to the 13th of June of the state house forcourt. Week three examines infrastructure value addition, youth participation, and agricultural financing, while week four highlights opportunities across key horiculture value chains. The final week looks at consumer power and Ghana's road map to food sovereignty by 2030. Stay tuned to Joy FM and Joy News.

[01:15:08]on PMX. My guests obviously join me who have been with me since we started.

[01:15:13]They've been debating uh the controversy around the LGBTQ bill that has been passed by parliament. But there's a significant controversy around whether it was passed legitimately, legally and ticked all the constitutional boxes. The speaker had thrown a huge uh spanner in the in the in the works there by suggesting that they in fact not suggesting asking for a reconsideration and we've been getting the thoughts of the stakeholders who have been uh very central to the crafting of this piece of legislation. Uh Dr. Augustus cowboy is a programs manager the human rights and social inclusion CD Adam san is the chairman of advocates for Christ reverend father Michael quu is a director for a governance justice piece of the Ghana Catholic bishop's conference and shik arm sh is the spokesperson for the national chief IM and just yesterday we heard from the president this is John Romani Mouhamama speaking in the UK >> parliament has been uh considering it and um it was supposed to have been passed last um week um there have been a few issues raised. One um that there wasn't um corroom when it was passed.

[01:16:27]>> Uh that's an issue that has come up >> and then two there were some procedural lapses in terms of its passage. Um I just uh got um some communication that the speaker was um reading a statement to address the issue of the lapses in the passage of the of the bill. And so like I said when I was the opposition leader, the president has a number of options um in this matter.

[01:17:05]um it must come for ascent and so once the president gets it um you go through it because you're not part of the discussion in parliament and so the legal representative the legal counseling the presidency and the attorney general would sit on it because it was a private members motion this was not a government bill >> and so we'll look at it and make sure that everything is in order before uh the president is advised to um ascent the president has another option. If there are some things that he thinks are a problem, he can refer to the council of state for advice. The council of state is an advisory body to the president and so they will take a look at it and then they will advise the president and if there are issues, substantial issues that are raised, the president would return the bill to parliament indicating exactly what the issues are. And so there's still quite a while to go before uh that bill becomes law.

[01:18:05]>> Thank you for certainly setting that out so clearly. Let me ask you >> Reverend now into this conversation and I bring in Reverend because last year in November the president met the clergy and the the Christian community and he said this quote if parliament of the people of Ghana endorses the bill, votes on it and passes it and it comes to me as president I will sign it. He had an opportunity yesterday to say repeat that point but he had him he threw up the options available to him possible return to consult um the council of state and consult his lawyers etc. Reverend tell me did the president there introduce any doubt there for you or you still believe that his view on the matter is agrees with where you currently stand on this issue?

[01:18:53]Well, I I would have preferred him to to say um yes or no, but but having having said that um he he didn't he didn't say no. So So that that that that that is some some some that brings some some hope. I think that I think that um if if what he said um has the the the value of um following procedure, when then that is fine. But but I I've said this and and I'll say it again that um at least from outside of of of of the of the citizenry um any any any attempt not to sign um a bill that in the end has been agreed as as as encapsulating the express will of the law. you know, any any any attempt not to sign it um will will will find will find opposition from our side. Uh because because we we believe that this is not a matter of of ideology. This is this a matter of people's understanding of themselves.

[01:20:06]>> Yeah. you know, and and we believe that Ghanaians understand themselves that that marriage is between a man and a woman and it is not merely religious, even though it has religious component, it is cultural. It is it is it is the it is the expressed consciousness of the of the people of Ghana um religious uh cultural everything you can say that is the expressed you know consciousness of the people. So uh we would hope we would hope that um the the president will will will show the the the courage of the convictions that we believe he has h to sign it when the the processes have have have duly h been um h completed. So I I I as I said I would have I would have wished for it to say well of course I said I will sign it so I'll sign it. But if if if if what he he he offers now is to is to offer you know insight into the processes when that is fine as long as the processes eventually lead to signing then that is fine.

[01:21:07]>> Uh shake please give me your reaction to the presser.

[01:21:11]>> Um well I would have also loved to hear him going direct uh and to say that given where we have reached he is prepared uh to sign as immediately as uh as possible. But I'm sure that he also reflected a bit on what the speaker also said regarding because he's noticed that some there is some additional debate about the matter and to get all of us to be on the on the on the same page. Um he says uh that he would want us to exhaust all the procedures uh as uh fully as possible and where still there are lacuna in terms of the the debate and things need to be considered uh he brought in the issue of the council of uh of state um uh to advise as to which direction we should which we should take. Uh I agree with uh reverend father that it it doesn't leave us hopeless.

[01:22:07]What it means is that uh still he's showing commitment. So it's only a matter of uh time. Probably the procedure he is preferring now probably will result in certain delays um contrary to the promises that were made before. Uh but at least it leaves us with some hope that once we get back to the drawing table and debate it outside of the political um divide and the political uh kind of competition. Um I think we should be able to to come together. Father earlier on said we should not view this thing as political uh contestation or political victory because I'm in the minority. So my view carries the carry the day. I'm the majority. My views carry the day. Once we begin to introduce this one, then the contestians begin ended up in a fiasco.

[01:23:01]Uh and then making nonsense of the whole effort since how many years we began this uh and then we will also sit down until we finish this particular term. Uh the four years is just around the corner and and that will be very disappointing if we don't get this signed before the current president exhaust his tenia. and and then and and then listening to the president, were you reassured that once the issues and the controversies have been resolved in parliament and it gets to his desk, he signs it?

[01:23:32]>> Well, yes. Uh let me say I believe that uh his excellency uh President John Mahama uh is looking to leave a legacy. He's not one to allow his integrity and credibility to be left hanging by not signing this. Eventually, it shall pass. Um, he knows full well that the the bulk of overwhelming majority of Ghanaians uh and I I remember my presentation to parliament, I quoted CDD's data that 93% plus said no, no, no. Uh, and I like that data. I had I had a thing with flags. We've all no, no, no, no. 93% of Ghanaians. It will pass. I'm quite sure we'll get there. It may take some time. We need to carry everybody along. But definitely uh this law will be passed for the good people of this country.

[01:24:20]>> I mean for the evidence of that it has been passed. It has been >> uh I mean asented to let me let me let me you're right. I sent it to you.

[01:24:29]>> Okay. Good. And and and Doc and Doc, so your your stance is is very clear on the matter, but if you listen to the president there, >> um Donado, I guess, didn't sign and if you I listen to your position, that is something that you would have obviously applauded. How are you reading the president's reaction when he was asked this yesterday in the UK?

[01:24:49]>> Okay. I think that um there's a difference between when you are a president in government than when you are president in opposition and that is clearly showing you know we had um I think in the last uh the last government the NDC as a party had gone to um to war with president on this issue and that the president was refusing to sign but it shows you that the president is dealing with the dilemma governance.

[01:25:20]He's he's looking at the legal and moral challenges of what he has before him and the decision he has to make. And it's not just an issue of yes or no because in different platforms he has said both president Kufu and President Muhammad has said different things in different in different on different platforms and it tells you that there is a great problem that they are faced with a challenge of deciding whether they want to pursue this path or not. It would have been easy I mean for the proponents um if they really believe that the president was in favor of this bill he could have easily have said yes but the president is sitting in the place we are not he sitting in a place looking at governors of a nation made up of people who are different people who are not all the same people who believe in different things people who do different things and he has to make a decision whether the action he's about to take is a morally right action And that is the dilemma that all presidents have been facing. Kufu, President Kufu and President Muhammad are facing. This is the challenge why this bill is is actually you having all these issues coming up. All these scenarios of we need to go back to the board and look it is a moral is a moral crisis that we are we are dealing with.

[01:26:42]or parliament.

[01:26:44]>> No, unfortunat un unfortunately I run out of time on this.

[01:26:48]>> I do have this one point to make.

[01:26:49]>> You have to you have to do it in 30 seconds.

[01:26:52]>> Yes, I need to correct Adam on something he said about the Afrobarita finding of 93% saying that they do not like LGBT people. He missed the he he actually didn't read the data very well because what he tells us was that data told us was that 93% of of Ghanaians are intolerant. We are not receptive to people of difference. We are not receptive. No.

[01:27:15]>> Okay. I mean that that that is that is a different interpretation of the data.

[01:27:20]>> That interpretation interpretation of an interpretation of the of the data and that obviously once you do that everybody else can take that same data and then read it differently. But by the way, thank you very much. We'll see how parliament try to resolve this tonight.

[01:27:34]The majority side had been very clear.

[01:27:36]The majority leader himself had told the speaker to the face when he spoke to us that what he's asked for is not possible because it's been passed. There was there was nothing illegal and it met all the procedural dictates and expectations and criteria and legally so. So we'll see how this is resolved. We haven't heard the last of this, trust me, not by a long shot into the rest of the evening.

[01:28:04]Heat. Heat.

[01:28:26]Heat. Heat.

[01:29:20]Ghana's third largest hydroelect electric facility, the BuDAM, built to power industries and homes across the nation, now faces an existential threat.

[01:29:33]Mining at the banks or in the river.

[01:29:36]It's actually going to worsen the situation. uh is going to get to a point where we may not have enough water uh uh in the river or in the dam uh to generate electricity from the middle belt.

[01:29:48]>> This threat is not from nature but from the surge of galance or illegal mining activities creeping dangerously close to its lifeline, the black vult.