Ghana’s public space has once again been consumed by the debate over LGBTQ+ rights.
From Parliament to pulpits, from radio studios to social media, the issue has ignited passionate reactions.
The previous Parliament passed the controversial private members’ bill targeting LGBTQ+ persons, but former President Nana Akuffo-Addo declined to assent to it.
Now, President Mahama, and very rightly so, has indicated that passing the anti LGBTQ+ legislation is not among his priorities ̶ a position that has drawn both applause and criticism.
Religious leaders, politicians and public commentators have taken sides.
Cardinal Turkson, who could have been elected as a Pope of the Catholic Church, has previously spoken against anti LGBTQ+ legislation, whilst Reverend Benson has recently defended President Mahama’s stance, arguing that poverty, healthcare, education, just to mention a few of the numerous problems confronting us as a nation, deserve greater attention.
Meanwhile, an MP has even threatened resignation should the bill be passed. Really!
Yet beneath the noise lies a deeper question: what does Ghana gain by prioritising anti LGBTQ+ legislation at a time of pressing national challenges?
And, more importantly, what do human rights principles, both international and constitutional, say about this issue?
Yours truly has written extensively on the subject, but I will reiterate the message again at the risk of sounding pedantic and stubborn.
The modern human rights framework is rooted in universal principles that emerged after World War II.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) established a simple but profound idea: all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
These rights apply to everyone ̶ not just the majority, but everyone.
Subsequent international treaties strengthened these principles.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects personal liberty.
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights protects social welfare and development.
Instruments
Closer to home, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights guarantees equality and dignity for all Africans.
These instruments, to which Ghana is a party, do not create ‘special rights’ for LGBTQ+ persons.
Rather, they affirm basic rights ̶ protection from violence, discrimination, arbitrary arrest and humiliation.
At its core, the LGBTQ+ debate is not about promoting lifestyles. It is about protecting human dignity.
Our Constitution is clear as it provides for equality before the law, freedom from discrimination, respect for human dignity, freedom of association and freedom of expression.
These rights apply to all Ghanaians.
The Constitution does not condition rights on popularity, religion or cultural approval.
Indeed, constitutional democracy exists precisely to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority ̶ from slavery to colonial rule to discrimination against women.
Opponents often argue that LGBTQ+ identities are ‘un-African’ or against Ghanaian culture.
Yet this argument struggles under scrutiny.
First, African societies have never been culturally static.
Practices once defended as cultural ̶ child marriage, widow inheritance, female exclusion from leadership, female genital mutilation ̶ have all been reformed over time.
Second, Ghanaian culture itself values tolerance, co-existence and community harmony.
The Ghanaian ethos emphasises ‘live and let live’ rather than persecution.
Third, culture can never justify discrimination.
If culture alone determined rights, then harmful practices could never be challenged.
Culture evolves ̶ human dignity endures.
Religious arguments
Religious arguments also dominate the debate.
Yet Ghana is constitutionally a secular state that guarantees freedom of religion.
Importantly, religious texts are interpreted differently across denominations.
Not all Christians or Muslims share the same view. Religious belief cannot be imposed as state law.
Also, as alluded to above, as Cardinal Turkson has argued, Christianity is not against homosexuality.
If indeed homosexuality is a sin, why did Jesus not speak against it?
There are no recorded statements from Jesus on the topic.
Those supporting anti LGBTQ+ legislation often quote from Matthew 19, where Jesus affirmed traditional marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
However, in this instance (Matthew 19:1 – 11), Jesus was responding to a question on divorce from some Pharisees, confirming that “what God has joined together, let no one separate”.
Jesus goes on to say that any man who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman, commits adultery.
No mention of homosexuality is contained therein.
Rather, Jesus admonishes men for their behaviour towards women.
Further, Jesus said LOVE is at the centre of his teachings and he came for sinners!
