Ghana’s recent anti-LGBTQ+ bill has ignited a fierce debate on the extent of external influence on sovereign decisions. The Ghanaian government faces the potential loss of $3.8 billion in World Bank funding over the contentious legislation, which has raised questions about the role of external bodies in shaping national policies.

The bill, which has been condemned by the US, UK, and various human rights groups, has put President Nana Akufo-Addo in a difficult position. The finance ministry has appealed to him to withhold his signature until the Supreme Court verifies its compliance with the constitution.

This situation has drawn comparisons to similar cases in the Western world. For instance, Uganda faced severe economic sanctions after adopting a similar policy last year, including losing financial support from the World Bank and being removed from the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) by the United States.

The IMF, which Ghana heavily relies on for financial support, has stated that it cannot comment on the bill until its economic and financial implications are assessed. However, officials warn that Ghana could forfeit around $850 million in aid this year if the bill is enacted, further straining the struggling economy.

The case of Ghana raises important questions about the balance between sovereignty and international pressure. While external bodies may have legitimate concerns about human rights, the decision-making process in sovereign nations should also be respected. Ghana’s experience serves as a reminder of the complex interplay between national sovereignty and global influence in today’s interconnected world.