Why should an individual’s sexual preference become the concern of others to the extent that it risks undermining the cohesion of a community—and, on a larger scale, the Ghanaian state? Under normal circumstances, this would hardly have been a national issue.
Yet, the world is increasingly confronted with a deliberate reconfiguration of nature’s order, as science pushes the boundaries of natural biology. Thus, the subject demands more serious and sustained global conversation.
Until recently, Ghana—and indeed much of the world—functioned without this matter occupying the centre of public policy and national debate. However, there has been a significant shift, with the world now confronted by what is often labelled a “new sexual order,” largely driven by Western influence and shaped by deliberately constructed theories aimed at redefining established norms.
This shift, challenges long-standing moral, cultural, and traditional values that have shaped societies like Ghana. It promotes the idea that individuals should be free to make deeply personal choices about intimate relationships, even when such choices conflict with established social ethics and beliefs.
To its proponents, this represents an expansion of human rights. To its critics, it raises fundamental questions about the limits of personal freedom, the role of culture, and the preservation of societal values. These tensions have fueled ongoing global and local debates.
Before the presidency of Donald Trump, advocacy from parts of the West reached a peak, with suggestions—at times—that economic cooperation or aid could be influenced by a country’s stance on such issues. In recent times, however, that intensity appears to have moderated, reflecting shifts even within Western political leadership and priorities.
The opposition drive in Ghana
Here in Ghana, the issue has resurfaced in political discourse. The opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) has criticized the governing side, pointing to what it describes as a failure by elements within the National Democratic Congress (NDC) to follow through on earlier commitments to pass legislation addressing LGBTQ+ matters.
The largely NDC-driven agitation led to the passage of a bill intended to define Ghana’s position on the issue. However, former President Nana Akufo-Addo did not assent to it. Consequently, political pressure has shifted toward President John Dramani Mahama, with critics scrutinising his previous posture on the matter while in opposition.
The latest NPP opposition-led coalition, appears less concerned with the precise wording of then-candidate John Dramani Mahama’s position. For them, the essence of his earlier statements suggests a firm stance against the practice in Ghana. By this logic, they argue, the President should have acted by now.
However, they seem to overlook the procedural reality that, following the former President Akufo-Addo’s refusal to assent, the bill in its current form requires a renewed legislative process before it can become legally binding.
What appears to have heightened tensions is the President’s recent assertion that LGBTQ+ issues are not among his immediate national priorities, despite his personal disapproval of the practice. This position has drawn criticism from those who believe the issue was previously amplified for political advantage.
Why LGBTQ+ cannot be a priority for Mahama
For Ghana, the central question remains whether this issue warrants the level of attention it currently commands, or whether national focus should remain firmly on pressing concerns that directly impact the well-being and progress of the people. For critics who argue that the issue was a topmost priority for then-candidate John Dramani Mahama, nothing could be further from the truth.
It was a matter shaped by the moment—one that required engagement from world leaders, stakeholders, and advocacy groups. Ghana could not operate in isolation. This explains why Parliament took a firm position, why the sitting President at the time declined to act, and why John Mahama’s comments were situated within the context of a process that was still unfolding.
Momentous issues must be understood within the context in which they arise. Only when such a matter has been fully enacted into law, and a President subsequently refuses to act in line with prior commitments, can questions of inconsistency arise. Until then, it remains a subject of national conversation, not necessarily a governing priority.
At present, the more urgent responsibility of leadership is to address the immediate challenges facing Ghanaians. These include cushioning citizens against the impact of the global energy crisis, tackling the persistent menace of galamsey that continues to devastate our environment and communities, and restoring dignity to affected livelihoods.
Beyond this, nearly every sector of Ghanaian society demands urgent attention—energy, employment, education, agriculture, and overall economic stability. These are the issues that define the daily realities of the Ghanaian people and must, therefore, command the priority of any serious government.
