The spokesperson for the National Chief Imam, Sheikh Aremeyaw Shaibu, has emphasized that only President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo has the power to sign the anti-LGBTQ+ bill.
In an interview, Sheikh Aremeyaw Shaibu urged Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo to stay true to his stance against gay marriage and not use legal technicalities to obstruct the anti-LGBTQ+ legislation.
“He himself has told us that we should be citizens and not spectators. Let him remain committed to his declaration that he does not support gay marriage and, therefore, he must sign this into law. Let us not hide behind technicalities of law and derail this whole process,” he said.
While commenting on the rejection of gay practices by the Vice President, Dr Mahamudu Bawumia, Sheikh Aremeyaw Shaibu said he did so because it did not align with his personal ethics and morality.
Join our WhatsApp Channel for more news
“For [Dr Bawumia], he said it is not an ‘If’ or ‘but’ matter, it is something that goes against his faith, personal ethics, his morality, his tradition, his culture, and so as the former President [John Dramani Mahama] has also indicated. But they are all waiting to be voted into office so we see what they can also use their power to do,” he said.
“Currently, the one who can take action is the President [Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo] and he is one that we are looking up to, if he fails us, it will be very disappointing,” he added.
Dr. Bawumia, in his Eid message on Thursday, April 11, said, “It is important to note our cultural, societal and norms, as well as our values as Ghanaians frown on same-sex marriage.”
Parliament unanimously passed the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill 2024, which is commonly referred to as an anti-LGBTQ+ bill, but it has yet to be assented into law.
The bill imposes penalties on individuals engaged in anti-LGBTQ+ activities, with punishments ranging from a minimum of three months to a maximum of 10 years for those found guilty of prohibited LGBTQ+ practices under the law.
The Supreme Court is handling two separate applications for injunction orders, which challenge various aspects of the controversial bill, including its constitutionality.
