Ghana’s supreme court has upheld a colonial-era law criminalising consensual same-sex conduct between adults, a decision criticised by Human Rights Watch as contrary to Ghana’s human rights obligations.
This ruling, which was made on the 24th of July 24, comes amid a heated debate over a proposed anti-LGBTQ+ law that could further criminalise sexual and gender minorities and their allies.
Rasha Younes, interim LGBTQ+ rights director at Human Rights Watch, commented on the ruling, saying, “Ghana’s supreme court unfortunately upheld the British colonial legacy of criminalising so-called ‘unnatural sex’.” The law was challenged because it violated constitutionally protected rights to privacy and personal liberty, which are also upheld by international law, regardless of sexual orientation.
Despite constitutional guarantees of human dignity, personal liberty, and privacy, violence and persecution against LGBT individuals in Ghana remain widespread. The situation has intensified with discussions surrounding the controversial bill.
Prince Obiri-Korang, a law lecturer at the University of Ghana, led the legal challenge. The disputed law, section 104(1)(b) of the Criminal Offences Act 1960 (Act 29), a remnant of British colonial rule, criminalises “unnatural carnal knowledge” of a person aged 16 or older with their consent as a misdemeanour. The term “unnatural carnal knowledge” is further defined to include “sexual intercourse in an unnatural manner or with an animal,” which the court interpreted to include the use of sex toys.
This ruling has expanded the interpretation of the law, seemingly incorporating language from the anti-LGBTQ+ Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill, 2021. The bill explicitly prohibits acts perceived as undermining proper sexual rights and Ghanaian family values.
In a 2017 interview, Jones Blantari, chief superintendent of Ghana’s police force, noted that the term “unnatural carnal knowledge” is vague and lacks clear legal definition, leading to inconsistent application and targeting of LGBTQ+ individuals.
The proposed bill, which the parliament passed in February 2024 and now awaits the president’s signature, increases the maximum penalty for same-sex activities from three to five years in prison. It also expands the potential for criminal charges against those identifying as LGBT, queer, pansexual, or any other non-conventional gender identity, as well as their supporters. The bill would also penalise anyone providing support, funding, or public advocacy for sexual and gender minority rights and those using social media to promote content prohibited by the bill.
Significant public figures in Ghana, including the Roman Catholic Cardinal Peter Turkson and former member of parliament Samia Nkrumah, have opposed the bill. Nkrumah, whose father, Kwame Nkrumah, was a pivotal figure in Ghana’s independence movement, called the bill “brutal, harsh, and unjust” and urged the president to veto it.
Younes expressed disappointment in the court’s decision, stating, “Ghana’s supreme court missed its opportunity to rid the country of its alien legacy of egregious colonial-era laws.” This decision, Younes argues, underscores the necessity for President Nana Akufo Addo to veto the new bill.
