A co-sponsor of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2025, Samuel Nartey George, has called on Parliament to transmit the bill to President John Dramani Mahama for the necessary constitutional processes.

He argues that Parliament’s Standing Orders do not provide room for reconsideration of the bill, following a request by the Speaker. According to him, once a bill has been duly passed, Parliament’s role is completed, and the next step lies with the President.

Speaking to journalists on the sidelines of the 4th Inter-Parliamentary Conference on Family, Sovereignty and Values, Mr. George said the Speaker’s suggestion for a reconsideration of the bill is not supported by parliamentary procedure.

“The Speaker has made an appeal. I have gone through the Standing Orders since I saw that appeal, and there is nothing in our Standing Orders for a rescission. When Parliament passes a bill, Parliament is functus officio.

“The only role Parliament has today is to transmit the bill to the President. When it goes to the President, the President has indicated he would want to scrutinise the bill. The Constitution spells out the steps the President can take,” he said.

He maintained that Parliament should proceed to transmit the bill to President Mahama adding that any attempt to revisit the passage of the legislation is not provided for in the House’s rules.

“Parliament is a House of rules. Respectfully to Mr. Speaker, it is not a House of appeals. If there is no rule in the rule book that allows what is being sought, then we proceed by the rules we have,” he added.

His comments come after Speaker Bagbin directed Parliament to reconsider the already passed Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2025, following discussions with the leadership of the House aimed at building broader consensus around the legislation.

The Speaker on Tuesday, June 2 called for further engagement between the Majority and Minority leadership after raising concerns about the process that led to the passage of the bill.

Bagbin said he had been surprised that the legislation was fully passed on Friday, May 29, explaining that he had expected Parliament to begin only the consideration stage before proceedings concluded.

He maintained that the bill, given its significance and the level of public interest it has generated, requires wider consultation and consensus among stakeholders.