Ghana stands at a crossroads, one where traditional values clash with modern notions of human rights and equality. In a recent meeting with the Catholic Bishops’ Conference, President John Dramani Mahama made a statement that has both stirred hope and controversy across the nation. His remarks on the anti-LGBT+ bill, the “Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values” bill, currently passed by parliament and awaiting presidential assent, have sparked a critical debate on the direction Ghana is heading in terms of human rights, social policy, and national unity.

The bill, which seeks to criminalize same-sex relations and promote “proper” sexual practices in alignment with what many consider to be Ghanaian family values, has been a polarizing issue. The proposal has received strong support from conservative elements within society who argue that it is necessary to preserve Ghana’s cultural integrity. Yet, it has also faced staunch opposition from human rights advocates, local and international, who decry it as a violation of basic human rights. In his recent comments, President Mahama stated that Ghanaian family values should be promoted through education, not legislation. He emphasized that a more inclusive approach could uphold traditional values, without resorting to a divisive legal framework. The president’s position is an intriguing one: is it a sign of political pragmatism? Or is it a calculated move to avoid further international backlash while maintaining domestic support?

On the surface, Mahama’s statement offers a glimmer of hope for the LGBT+ community, who have long been subjected to systemic discrimination, fear, and violence. For many, the mere suggestion that LGBT+ issues could be addressed through education rather than criminalization represents a significant departure from the traditional legislative path championed by the bill’s proponents. This shift implies a possible opening for dialogue and a more inclusive approach, one that recognizes the need for respect and understanding of diverse sexual identities within Ghanaian society.

However, as with any political statement, the devil is in the details. Mahama’s call for education as the vehicle for promoting Ghanaian family values leaves several critical questions unanswered. How will these values be incorporated into the educational curriculum? Will the curriculum provide a comprehensive, nuanced understanding of human sexuality that respects diversity, or will it risk reinforcing discriminatory attitudes under the guise of “cultural preservation”? The fear, particularly among LGBT+ activists, is that the emphasis on education could inadvertently foster homophobia in Ghanaian children. If the content is not carefully structured, it could perpetuate harmful stereotypes and deepen existing prejudices. Moreover, what is meant by “inclusive” when it comes to family values? Is it possible to teach traditional values that respect all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation, while also preserving the moral and cultural fabric of society? These are the questions that must be addressed before any real progress can be made.

At the same time, Mahama’s suggestion that a government-sponsored initiative could have a better chance of success than a purely legislative one signals a level of political caution. This could be interpreted as a sign that the president is sensitive to the growing demand for human rights protections but is wary of alienating conservative constituencies that hold significant sway in the country’s political landscape. While Mahama may not yet be fully committing to a clear policy direction, his statement leaves open the possibility of a more balanced approach, one that allows
for a national conversation on sexual rights without rushing into divisive legislation. For the proponents of the anti-LGBT+ bill, Mahama’s comments are likely to be seen as a setback. For many in this camp, the bill represents a necessary step in safeguarding Ghana’s identity and cultural values in an increasingly globalized world. To them, the president’s words may seem like a retreat, signaling a lack of political will to follow through on the legislative promises made by Parliament. The next steps for the proponents of the bill will be crucial: will they double down on their advocacy for a legal approach, or will they pivot toward more educational and cultural strategies, as suggested by the president?

In the midst of this debate, the broader question remains: what does the president’s statement truly signify for the future of LGBT+ rights in Ghana? Is this a genuine step toward inclusivity and a more progressive, open society, or merely another political maneuver designed to quell unrest without addressing the root causes of discrimination? For the LGBT+ community, this may offer a sigh of relief, but it is also important to remain vigilant. Political promises can be fleeting, and the realities of policy implementation are far more complex than mere words on paper. Ultimately, the question of whether this is a step in the right direction or a hollow political statement depends on how the government chooses to act in the coming months. Will education become a tool for enlightenment and understanding, or will it be used to further entrench prejudices? And, perhaps most importantly, will the voices of the marginalized be heard and respected in a nation still grappling with its cultural and political identity? As Ghana moves forward, the answers to these questions will define not only the future of LGBT+ rights but the nation’s commitment to human dignity and equality for all.

Berinyuy Hans Burinyuy.
Director of Communications,
LGBT+ Rights Ghana.