Ghanaian lawyer and activist Mawuse Oliver Barker-Vormawor has forcefully rebutted attempts to misrepresent the Constitutional Review Committee’s recommendations on intersex children as a covert effort to introduce LGBTQ+ rights into the 1992 Constitution.
Speaking on NewsFile on December 28, 2025, Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah, a Member of Parliament for Manhyia South and member of the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee, claimed that constitutional protections for intersex children could “open the door” to LGBTQ+ claims, asserting that “we know that these things can be the entrance of LGBTQ.”
This assertion is not only inaccurate but directly contradicted by the plain language of the Constitutional Review Committee’s report.
Page 104 of the report, under the heading “The Right of Children to Bodily Integrity,” makes no reference—explicit or implied—to sexual orientation or gender identity. Instead, it focuses narrowly and unequivocally on protecting children from irreversible, non-consensual medical or surgical interventions that are not medically necessary to preserve life or prevent serious and immediate harm. The recommendations are anchored in Articles 28, 15, and 30 of the Constitution and are framed around bodily integrity, human dignity, and the best interests of the child.
In his response, Barker-Vormawor clarified the core issue at stake: intersex children are born with variations in sex characteristics that make it impossible, at birth, to categorically assign them as male or female. This is a naturally occurring biological reality, not an ideological construct. He explained that, historically and currently, some parents—often driven by fear of stigma, social pressure, or cultural expectations—subject such children to “normalising” surgeries at infancy or early childhood. These procedures are frequently irreversible, medically unnecessary, and performed long before the child can give informed consent.
He highlighted the real and lasting harm caused by such interventions, including cases where children later develop sex characteristics inconsistent with the surgically imposed anatomy, leading to severe medical complications, psychological trauma, and violations of personal dignity. As Barker-Vormawor stressed, the Committee’s recommendation is a safeguard against precisely this harm: it insists that such decisions must be medical, evidence-based, and rights-respecting—not cultural or cosmetic impositions enforced on a child’s body.
When Baffour Awuah questioned whether such protections “should be in the Constitution,” Barker-Vormawor responded by pointing directly to the report’s intent. The recommendation does not create new social categories or identities; it clarifies Article 28 and gives Parliament a constitutional mandate to legislate safeguards that protect children from bodily harm. In effect, it strengthens constitutional oversight over invasive practices that violate human dignity.
This position was further reinforced by Inusah Fuseini, lawyer and former Member of Parliament, who categorically rejected the claim that the recommendations import LGBTQ+ concepts into constitutional law. He stated unequivocally that there was “no attempt—deliberate or by accident—to import into the constitutional amendment the LGBTQ.”
Fuseini emphasised that the Committee’s concern is singular and principled: the protection of the child. He explained that the proposed reforms are designed to prevent invasive attacks on a child’s personality, bodily integrity, and natural development, particularly when such attacks are initiated by parents or guardians at birth. As both Fuseini and Barker-Vormawor noted, these decisions must be medical and grounded in the child’s best interests—not driven by social discomfort or cultural anxiety.
To underscore the point, Fuseini drew a parallel with female genital mutilation (FGM), a practice Ghana unequivocally condemns and criminalises. In both cases, the state intervenes to protect children from irreversible bodily harm inflicted under the guise of culture or tradition. The constitutional recommendations on intersex children follow this same logic: they are protective, not permissive; preventative, not ideological.
The Committee’s call for Parliament to amend the Children’s Act and establish accountability frameworks—civil, disciplinary, and criminal—further confirms this intent. These measures aim to ensure informed consent, independent medical review, and access to redress where violations occur. None of these safeguards relate to LGBTQ+ rights; all of them relate to child protection, medical ethics, and human dignity.
Framing these protections as an “entrance” for LGBTQ+ claims is therefore a misrepresentation that risks obscuring the real issue: the ongoing violation of children’s bodily integrity through non-therapeutic, irreversible medical interventions. As Barker-Vormawor and Fuseini both made clear, the Constitutional Review Committee’s recommendations are about ensuring that every child in Ghana is protected from harm at the most vulnerable stage of life—and that is a constitutional responsibility, not an ideological agenda.
Rightify Ghana 