Headucator could be charged under anti-LGBTQ law – Sam George

Ningo Prampram MP Sam George says popular LGBT icon, Headucator, could face prosecution over leaked homosexual intercourse online.

The legislator made the remarks during deliberations by Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee on the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill 2025, where he appeared as a sponsor to justify the proposed legislation.

Arguing for the passage of the bill, Sam George suggested that both alleged conduct and public expression could meet legal thresholds for prosecution.

He stated, “There is an act and the actus reus and mens rea can be determined from his activity.” He further explained that, beyond any alleged private conduct, public communications could also be examined, adding, “You take his post on social media, his public commentary he has made as to what his sexual preferences are.”

The MP referenced a widely circulated video allegedly involving the individual known as Headucator, indicating that such material could be treated separately under the law.

“That is a different thing,” he said, distinguishing between the video evidence and what he described as consistent online promotion. He continued, “That individual holds himself out and promotes homosexual activities on his social media page.”

His comments have triggered sharp reactions online, particularly from the individual at the center of the claims. In response, Jezel Nana Akua Serwaa Akoto, popularly known as Headucator, used a TikTok live session to criticise the ongoing parliamentary deliberations.

Headucator argued that the bill, rather than addressing societal concerns, could have unintended consequences for members of the LGBTQ+ community. He indicated that such legislation might push individuals to consider leaving the country, viewing it as an opportunity to seek asylum in jurisdictions where they could access protections and social benefits.

The exchange highlights the deepening divide over the proposed bill, which has sparked intense public debate across Ghana. While proponents argue it is necessary to uphold cultural and family values, critics warn it could criminalise identity and expression, raising concerns about human rights and freedom of speech.

As parliamentary scrutiny continues, statements from both lawmakers and affected individuals are shaping a contentious national conversation.