In a contentious gathering in Accra, Ghana, lawmakers from across Africa convened to discuss a draft charter that has drawn fierce criticism for its regressive stance on sexual and reproductive rights. The proposed treaty, which asserts that these rights threaten the very fabric of African families, has been condemned by numerous human rights advocates as a dangerous retreat from established international norms.
A Step Backward for Human Rights
The conference, led by Ghana’s parliamentary speaker Alban Bagbin, focused on an African charter that claims to defend cultural integrity against what it describes as foreign ideologies. The draft explicitly calls for the withdrawal from international agreements, including the 2003 Maputo Protocol that advocates for gender equality and the safeguarding of women’s reproductive health rights. Instead, it positions itself as a defender of traditional family structures, which it argues are under siege.
The charter presents a stark departure from a rights-based framework, suggesting that sexual and reproductive health rights pose an existential threat to the African family unit. It falsely alleges that policies promoting these rights inherently endorse abortion on demand, a claim that critics vehemently contest.
An Assault on Education and Identity
This draft document also takes a hardline stance against comprehensive sex education, labelling it as harmful and sexualising for children. It asserts a binary definition of gender, firmly placing it in opposition to contemporary understandings of identity. Moreover, the charter prioritises parental rights over those of children, effectively undermining the autonomy of young individuals regarding their own sexuality and personal development.
Gilbert Mitullah, a prominent Kenyan lawyer and board member of the Queer African Network, articulated the charter’s implications succinctly. He described it as a “licence to oppose, regress on or refuse to implement existing commitments on sexual and reproductive health, and on LGBTQ rights,” indicating the charter’s potential to dismantle hard-won protections for vulnerable groups.
A Diverse Continent’s Struggle for Recognition
The charter’s narrow definition of the family, rooted strictly in heterosexual marriage, neglects the rich diversity of family structures that exist across Africa’s 54 nations. This oversight has been highlighted by organisations such as the Initiative for Strategic Litigation in Africa (ISLA), which warns that the charter’s focus on collective family interests could result in the subjugation of women and children, insulating harmful practices from state scrutiny.
Lakshita Kanhiya, a legal officer at ISLA, expressed grave concerns over the implications of this charter, stating, “Women will no longer be safe; children will not be safe.” Such sentiments resonate deeply in a continent where many communities are already grappling with issues of gender-based violence and discrimination.
The Influence of External Forces
Critics argue that the charter is heavily influenced by conservative Christian groups from the West, which have long opposed reproductive rights and LGBTQ+ acceptance. This external pressure is evident in the language of the charter, which distorts legitimate discussions about sovereignty and colonialism. Instead of empowering African nations, such rhetoric serves to entrench a colonial mindset, framing progressive policies as forms of neocolonialism or cultural imperialism.
Famia Nkansa, communications lead at Purposeful, a Sierra Leonean organisation focused on girl activism, encapsulated this sentiment, stating, “Anti-rights activity on the continent is simply an extension and expansion of the same colonial playbook: Africa serving as a battleground on which the west wages its ideological and economic wars.”
A Controversial Agenda
The conference, attended by representatives from 20 countries, marked the first time Ghana hosted this annual event, which has gained notoriety for its role in shaping anti-homosexuality legislation. The overarching aim was to gather enough support for the charter to present it at the upcoming African Union general assembly in February, where it would be subjected to a crucial vote.
Supporters of the charter, including Family Watch International—a US-based Christian lobbying group—claim it reflects genuine African values. However, critics like Mitullah argue that it is merely a “transplant” of foreign ideologies masquerading as local governance.
Why it Matters
The developments in Accra represent a significant crossroads for human rights in Africa. The potential adoption of this charter could not only undermine existing protections for women and LGBTQ+ individuals but also erode the very foundations of personal freedoms across the continent. As this draft moves closer to becoming policy, the implications for human rights and individual dignity in Africa could be devastating, marking a regression into outdated norms that many had hoped were left behind. The outcome of this charter will resonate far beyond Ghana, signalling either a retreat from human rights or a reinvigoration of the fight for equality and dignity across the continent.