In a recent parliamentary session, the Chairman of the Constitutional, Legal, and Parliamentary Affairs Committee, Kwame Anyimadu Antwi, proposed the removal of Clause 4 from the Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values bill. The clause, which addresses offenses related to undermining sexual rights and family values, has been criticized as ambiguous and subjective.
Antwi, advocating for deletion, argued that the lack of a clear definition for “undermine” renders the clause subjective and ambiguous. He cited recommendations from the Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, emphasizing the need to avoid ambiguities when creating offenses.
“Mr. Speaker this is the advice the learned Attorney General gave to the committee and the entire committee agreed on this advice. And that’s why we agreed as has been said by ranking that it was too much of subjectivity and ambiguities and that is why we propose that in deleting and creating an offence we shouldn’t be having ambiguities and subjectivities. That is why the proposal is to delete the entire clause,” he stated.
Responding to the recommendation, the bill’s sponsor, Rockson-Nelson Defeamekpor, expressed disagreement, asserting that Clause 4 is integral to the entire legislation. He challenged the notion of subjectivity and ambiguity, stating the clause’s importance and fundamental role in the bill. Despite calls for deletion, Defeamekpor highlighted the investigative process that follows a breach of the clause, emphasizing its significance in establishing prima facie evidence.
“Mr. Speaker the essence of four is so cardinal to this legislation. So, so cardinal, so, so fundamental to it. I’ve been struggling to appreciate the point made by the ranking member that this offence in article 39, he’s not been able to point it out.The subjectivity element that he points to, that too I am struggling to appreciate,” he added.
The parliamentary debate revolves around the balance between defining offenses clearly and preserving the essence of the legislation, with proponents of deletion citing concerns of subjectivity, while the bill’s sponsor underscores the clause’s crucial role in the legal framework.
