Private legal practitioner and activist Oliver Barker-Vormawor has challenged public claims about the reintroduced Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill, arguing that the latest version differs significantly from the one previously passed by Parliament and submitted for presidential assent.
In a Facebook post on Monday, June 1, Barker-Vormawor disputed assertions by Assin South MP Rev. John Ntim Fordjour that the reintroduced legislation contains only 31 amendments and represents a watered-down version of the earlier Bill.
According to him, such claims do not accurately reflect the extent of the changes made to the legislation. He said a technical legal review conducted by his law firm, Merton & Everett LLP, found substantial structural and substantive modifications.
Barker-Vormawor explained that the firm undertook a comparative analysis of the Bill in March 2026 after it was reintroduced to Parliament by its sponsors. The review identified at least 27 clear textual and structural changes, while a broader assessment suggested as many as 64 modifications.
He maintained that suggestions the Bill was reintroduced without significant alterations are misleading, arguing that the changes materially affect its structure, definitions, and enforcement mechanisms.
Among the notable revisions, he highlighted the restructuring of the legislation from 20 sections in the 2024 version to 19 clauses in the reintroduced Bill.
He also pointed to the addition of an expanded explanatory memorandum spanning about 19 pages, detailing the Bill’s legislative history, constitutional basis, and international law arguments, alongside clause-by-clause explanations.
He further noted the removal of a standalone offence relating to the “subversion of family values” and its accompanying penalties, as well as the deletion of a broadly framed offence that criminalised aiding or facilitating such conduct.
According to Barker-Vormawor, several provisions creating criminal offences have also been redrafted from direct criminal language into prohibition-based wording, using phrases such as “a person shall not,” while retaining many of the original penalties.
He cited provisions dealing with procurement, detention, brothel-related offences, gross indecency, void marriages, and funding or sponsorship activities as examples of this legislative restructuring.
While penalties in many instances remain unchanged, he argued that the revised drafting style represents a significant shift in how offences are framed and potentially enforced.
Barker-Vormawor also raised concerns about expanded definitions and the introduction of additional identity categories in the Bill. He noted the inclusion of “queer” among recognised identities, as well as newly defined terms such as “intersex,” “non-binary,” and “pansexual.”
He further pointed to provisions that criminalise conduct or identity expressions deemed inconsistent with binary gender classifications, arguing that they broaden the potential scope of legal liability.
Additionally, he expressed concern that the formal definition of “intersex,” when read together with certain operative clauses, could create legal vulnerabilities for some individuals depending on how the law is interpreted and enforced.
Barker-Vormawor said the reintroduced legislation reflects a complex combination of deletions, structural revisions, and expanded definitions, and therefore cannot be accurately described as merely a weaker version of the original Bill or reduced to a simple tally of amendments.
Minority demands return of original anti-LGBTQ+ Bill, rejects ‘dangerous dilutions’
