Political Football with LGBTQ+: Abstention in the UN HRC vote, the Foreign Affairs Ministry’s “Justification”
Ghana’s recent abstention at the UN Human Rights Council vote on extending the mandate of the Independent Expert on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) wasn’t just a diplomatic sidestep. It was the latest, clear manifestation of a deeply cynical political game where the genuine concerns of Ghanaians about LGBTQ+ are used as a political football – kicked strongly during campaigns only to be abandoned when in power and in the wake of international scrutiny.
For years, the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill (Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill) has rolled on in Ghanaian politics. A Proposed legislation seeking to criminalize not only same-sex relationships but also advocacy, support, and even public displays of affection, it taps into a vein of cultural and religious conservatism.
The bill was approved by the Parliament of Ghana on February 28, 2024, with bipartisan support, and the only thing that prevented it from becoming a law was the Presidential Assent, which did not happen under the erstwhile Akufo-Addo administration.
Having expired with the dissolution of the 8th Parliament prior to the 2024 general elections, a coalition of Members of Parliament led by Assin South MP, Rev. Ntim Fordjour, reintroduced the bill to parliament for passage and a potential assent from President Mahama, which no Ghanaian would ever have doubted, given his grand campaign promise to sign the bill into law when voted into power.
“The faith I have will not allow me to accept a man marrying a man, and a woman marrying a woman,” then-opposition Presidential Candidate Mahama said during a meeting with the clergy in Eastern Region prior to the December 7 polls.
Quite evidently, it has become a potent, low-risk campaign tool. Politicians, sensing electoral advantage, have fallen over themselves to pledge their unwavering commitment to “Ghanaian family values,” promising extensive commitment to the bill once in power.
Yet, once the confetti settles and the realities of governance, international relations, and constitutional obligations set in, the energy wanes.
Following news of Ghana’s abstention, various segments of the population registered their surprise.
“During the campaign, Mahama said he would sign the LGBTQ+ bill into law, but now he gives excuses about the bill expiring. This is part of why Ghanaians lost confidence in the NPP too… We Ghanaians must rise up and not allow this. We need to protect Ghana from LGBTQ influences,” the founder and leader of United Progressive Party (UPP), Akwasi Addai Odike expressed.
The potential clash with the progressive 1992 Constitution, the threat of severed international aid and investment, the uncomfortable spotlight of global human rights condemnation, all lay the foundation for justifiable delay tactics.
“This abstinence creates the impression that there are some development partners who support the bill, so when you vote against it, they will withdraw support. It means we don’t have the boldness to represent the aspirations of our people,” the Member of Parliament for Assin South and key sponsor of the Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill, Rev. Ntim Fordjour expressed.
The Foreign Affairs Ministry, on Wednesday, July 9, offered a “justification” for abstaining in the critical UN HRC’s vote, a move described by many in many terms suggesting hypocrisy.
The question before the Council was whether persons who identify as LGBTQI should be protected against violence and discrimination or not.
The Ministry explained that Ghana abstained in the vote, to be consistent with Chapter 5, Article 17 of the 1992 Constitution, which “specifically prohibits discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, color, ethnic origin, religion, creed, or social and economic status.”
The Contradiction?
Going by the Ministry’s interpretation Chapter 5, Article 17, the UN vote aligns perfectly with the Constitution. The core purpose of the UN SOGI mandate is to prevent violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. This is fundamentally about protecting individuals from discrimination – precisely what Chapter 5, Article 17 of the 1992 Constitution prohibits.
Voting “YES” would have been a powerful affirmation of Ghana’s own constitutional commitment to non-discrimination on any grounds. It would have indicated consistency between aspirations on a domestic level and international action.
The abstention revealed the Real motive. If the Constitution truly is the guiding principle, as the Ministry claims, a “YES” vote was the only logical, principled choice. Does the abstention then render the Ministry’s justification hollow? A smokescreen?
The government couldn’t vote “YES” because it would be politically suicidal at home, seen as endorsing LGBTQ+ rights – contrary to the very “values” they invoked to get elected.
Yet, they also dared not vote “NO,” knowing it would be a blatant rejection of their constitutional duty and invite severe international backlash.
The only safe option was the middle ground: abstention. Say nothing, stand for nothing. Much to the surprise of Ghanaians.
Abstention hitched to the unpassed bill? The government’s decision to abstain in the vote could be directly fueled by the yet-to-be-passed Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill. Perhaps government is terrified of taking any action – domestically or internationally – that could be interpreted as supportive of LGBTQ+ individuals, lest it anger the base demanding the bill’s passage.
It is no secret that they are equally terrified of fully embracing the bill’s draconian vision and facing the international consequences. The result? Paralysis and “hypocrisy.”
They campaign on banning LGBTQ+ “activities” but when the time came to definitively outlaw them and protect the “values” of the Ghanaian community, or renege on their promise and vote to protect persons who identify as LGBTQI, the safe middle ground became a convenient escape route.
The Political Football Game with LGBTQ+
During campaign seasons, the “threat” of LGBTQ+ is amplified, promises to uphold and protect Ghanaian “values” are loud and clear. When power is given, reality bites, the complexities of law, diplomacy, and the Constitution emerge, the political cost of actually implementing harsh criminalization or openly defying global human rights consensus becomes apparent, action is avoided, global engagements are navigated with weasel words and, now, abstentions.
Can the government’s UN HRC vote abstention be seen as more of a confession than neutrality? A confession that administrations will prioritize political expediency over principled governance?
Until Ghanaian politicians are able to reconcile their campaign rhetoric with their constitutional duties and international obligations – to either honestly champion the “discriminatory” course, to criminalize LGBTQ+ activities and face the consequences, or to definitively reject the “values” of society and protect all citizens, as espoused in Chapter 5, Article 17, the issue of safeguarding the Ghanaian society against LGBTQ+ will remain a political plaything.
About The Author
