How can Ghana avoid risk losing it's annual 36 million pound development aid from Britain?

Background Britain is using it's international development funds to reward countries with good human rights records. Ghana is under review for possible cuts in it's 36 Million pound annual aid due to the way that the NDC Government members and ministers have spectacularly mishandled the debate over 'gay rights' and failed to repeal the 19th Century colonial law that remains part of the Ghana Criminal Code on 'unnatural carnal knowledge.' That law originated under Queen Victoria, and imposes prison sentences for penile penitration in any oriface other than a vagina. Most Commonwealth countries repealed it decades ago. It still remains in Ghana's Criminal Code.

Consequences of this bad law The law is rightly seen as an outrage against our right to privacy in the bedroom. This Victorian era law it is used today in a totally discriminatory way with prosecutions only ever against gay men. Further, the law is serving no public interest, diverting scarce police and judicial resources on a victimless crime. By its mere presence in the Criminal Code of Ghana and its long history of abuse in Ghana, this obnoxious law runs counter to UN initiatives against homophobia and the initiatives Kofi Anan instigated when he was General Secretary of the UN. All these factors, accumulate and tarnish Ghana's otherwise good human rights reputation. The international consequences, apart from puting Ghana's considerable aid funding at risk, also highlights to the world a nasty side to Ghana, a lack of social inclusiveness that most people expect of governments today and this has in turn a negative impact on the attractiveness of Ghana as an investment and tourist destination. David Cameron's campaign for gay rights in Ghana and other Commonwealth Countries has put the international spotlight on Ghana. All these issues beg the question: Is it all worth it?

What is nasty about it? The law has been applied by police in Ghana only against gay and bi-sexual men, often after 'confessions' beaten from suspects. The law is frequently used by blackmailers and criminals to shield serious assaults and robbery against members of the GLBT community in Ghana. The Government has had a head-in-the-sand attitude to the policy conundrums created by this unjust and stupid law. Isn't it time for a reality check?

The TV cover (opposite) provides further background to possible consequences to Ghana from Britain.

In summary: Britain will cut aid to poor countries which persecute gay people, Britain's international development secretary Andrew Mitchell has warned. Aid ‘fines’ may be imposed on countries such as Uganda and Ghana for hardline anti-gay laws.
Malawi, sentenced a couple to 14 years’ hard labour for contravening anti-gay laws, has already had its aid cut by £19 million. A spokesman for Mr Mitchell told the newspaper that the government now regularly reviews aid-receiving countries on their commitments to human rights.
He said: “The government is committed to combating violence and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in all circumstances, in this country and abroad. We take action where we have concerns.

“We now allocate funds every three months, rather than every year, so that we can review a country’s performance, for example on human rights, and take swift action when governments fall short. We only provide aid directly to governments when we are satisfied that they share our commitments to reduce poverty and respect human rights.”
Prime minister David Cameron has increased Britain's aid budget from £7.5 billion last year to £11.4 billion in 2013 is a sign of “moral strength”.

In Ghana, a government minister recently called for the arrest of all gay people in the country’s western region. This followed president John Evans Atta Mills’ pledge to curb the “menace” of homosexuality.
Mr Mitchell’s deputy Stephen O’Brien told the president earlier this year that Ghana would lose its £36 million a year from Britain unless he stops persecuting gay people.

What do you think?
Why does this problem exist in Ghana? Some religious and civic leaders in Ghana have been pressing the point that the law in Ghana should reflect scripture, with an explicit abomination against homosexuality justifying sexual acts being illegal and prison time under the crime of 'unnatural carnal knowledge'.

In the interview opposite, the new head of Ghana's Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) , Lauretta Lamptey, makes the valid point that adultery is not illegal in Ghana even though scripture puts this sin into the category of one of the nine deadly sins! So should those rallying against 'gayism', at least show some consistency? For parliament to repeal the undefined law on 'unnatural carnal knowledge' (UCK) will sensibly end this inconsistency and perhaps put both behavious into the category of 'not supported by our religion' but ultimately they are both a personal matter of individual choice. Harmless bedroom activities behind closed doors between consenting adults should never be subject to intrusion, investigation and prosecution by the state. The only countries that police the bedroom in 2011 are under the control of extreme religious rule. No modern liberal democracy counternances such a gross infringement of privacy and basic human rights.

Lauretta Lamptey has proposed acceptance of Ghanaians with different sexualities by religious groups but with one outrageous proviso: chastity. In case you do not read newspapers, even many celebate clergy have difficulty with that one Lauretta. Lauretta's point is that chaste gay men have not committed a crime in Ghana, only the sexually active gay men have broken the law. (That would be around 99.9% Lauretta, the others probably are off the hook as they have had a sex change operation.)

In an interview with Joy TV News (opposite), Lauretta said she was trying to find the middle ground in the current debate with those who hold that homosexuality is an abomination. Do you think it is an abomination, Lauretta? No likely compromises with Ghana's hard line clerics. Perhaps, you could look at what Iran's clerics have sanctioned. The middle ground in Iran is for passive partners to have sex change operations - they now have the highest sex change rate in the world. is this your Plan B Lauretta? Turning thousands of Ghanain men into women to satisfy religious law? let's get real, you can safely assume chastity is a 'no deal' with the GLBT community.

As to additional rights: for marriage equality or civil union rights Lauretta said: 'the country is no where ready for that'. Lauretta, isn't it your job to help make the country ready for that? Isn't the goal of faithful, monogamous relationships something in the public interest? It's all about 'softening up' the public with a rejoiner, Lauretta. You should have added: ' ...but seeing the enthusiasm for gay marriage within the GLBT community in Ghana, I expect it will happen in my lifetime.'

But even on the question of reforming UCK, Lauretta described the law as murky as to what is unnatural, and she left open the possibility of MPs providing a legislative definition of what is unnatural that could narrow the present ambiguity of the law. This suggestion for a definition to tidy up the law for lawyers is taken up, possibly exempting 'unintended' bedroom behaviours such as oral sex and perhaps even extending to heterosexual anal intercourse, (all of which were aborrent to Queen Victoria), then the final outcome would be to leave the application of the law to purely target gay men who admitted to having sexal intercourse with their partners.

Lauetta, I somehow don't think this is the kind of law reform that is required here to deal with the problems identified on this page.

On the Right Track? Do members of the Gay Community feel that the CHRAJ Head is on the right track, seeking the so called middle ground? How would you rate Lauretta's interview on Joy News?

Do you feel that trading your sex life, by becoming chaste in exchange for 'religious tolerance' is the right policy setting for the CHRAJ to be seeking? Did the CHRAJ consult the gay community in Ghana before issuing these policy options on our behalf? Tolerating chaste gay men has already been the stated position of several leading religious leaders in Ghana for some time now, so is the CHRAJ, really abrogating their role as champion of human rights? Should their aim be in improving a very bad situation for the GLBT community to a better place?

In contrast, most commissions for human rights, do publicly advocate a legal reform position where existing laws are bad. Shouldn't the CHRAJ be making the case for incremental steps to bring Ghana into policy alignment with the United Nations stance against homophobia?
Didn't the former head of the CHRAJ, Anna Bossman, demonstrate great courage, at a high personal cost, in actively pursuing the case for reform? She never tried to promote chastity as a model status for a gay couple, nor did she support a law that encourages deceipt and haphazardly imposes a selective religious position on some unfortunate decent, law abiding citizens who happen to live their lives truthfully?

Hard Questions The hard question for the government to ponder is this: Is the CHRAJ's current position sufficient or likely to assist the Government of Ghana in retaining the 36 million pounds a year in UK aid funding, now apparently at risk due to the way that the current debate over human rights has led to the inflamatory speeches against gays in Ghana?
Will the CHRAJ exercise the expected level of independance and speak out vigorously against incitement to mob violence against gays by MP's and against Minister's advocating mass arrests? The media should be better utilised in making people aware of the negative consequences of whipping up hatred against gays. The president needs to point out that the national interest is not served by such behaviour.

An achievable way forward The good news is that there is a tested and relatively easy way forward for President Mills and the CHRAJ to clear the log jam. By initiating an Attorney General's motion to the Supreme Court seeking a declaration that the UCK law is:

• ambigious and discriminatory,
• inconsistent with the personal rights and freedoms to all citizens expressed in the Constitution of Ghana,
• inconsistent with Ghana's public health laws to prevent sexually transmitted diseases,
• against Ghana's international treaty obligations, and
  
• not in the public interest, and
  

the accordingly, the law is null and void. This has been the path taken by India and other Commonwealth Countries. As a lawyer, should Lauretta Lamptey be proposing this as the best option, taking the human rights 'high ground' instead of her swampy, impractical, 'middle ground'?

A giant leap forward A big step forward for Ghana would be for the government to:

• show its good faith to Ghana's GLBT community and provide support for Ghana's first ever Gay Pride March or Festival,
  
• announce action to rid Ghana of the unnatural carnel knowledge law and
  
• work on building harmony by extending welcome and braking down false misconceptions about LGBT people.

Please let President Mills and the CHRAJ know your views and your personal story.


See also the position of GALAG president McDarling