Uganda court scraps new anti-gay law

KAMPALA (AFP) – Uganda’s
constitutional court on Friday
overturned tough new anti-gay
laws that had been branded
draconian by rights groups, saying
they had been wrongly passed by
parliament.
The law is “null and void,” the
presiding judge told the court,
saying the process had
contravened the constitution, as it
has been passed in parliament in
December without the necessary
quorum of lawmakers.
“Justice prevailed, we won,” said
lawyer Nicholas Opiyo, who led the
challenge in the constitutional
court.
The law’s supporters said they
would appeal the ruling at the
Supreme Court.
“The retrogressive anti-
homosexuality act of Uganda has
been struck down by the
constitutional court — it’s now
dead as a door nail,” said Andrew
Mwenda, one of 10 petitioners.
The law, signed by Uganda’s
veteran President Yoweri Museveni
in February, said that homosexuals
should be jailed for life, outlawed
the promotion of homosexuality
and obliged Ugandans to denounce
gays to the authorities.
US Secretary of State John Kerry
likened the law to anti-Semitic
legislation in Nazi Germany.
But homosexuality in Uganda
remains illegal and punishable by
jail sentences under previous
legislation, which is expected to be
returned after the court’s decision.
- ‘No longer criminal’ -
Government spokesman Ofwono
Opondo said the law — as it is on
paper — remains valid, saying it
had been struck down on a matter
of procedure and not over its
content.
“The ruling has not nullified the
anti-homosexuality law, it only
ruled on the validity of the
procedure in parliament,” he said.
But gay rights activists were
celebrating.
“I am no longer criminal, today we
have made history for generations
to come,” said Kasha Jacqueline,
another petitioner and a prominent
gay rights activist.
“I am officially legal,” said Frank
Mugisha, another petitioner, but
admitting despite his “celebration
mood” the ruling was only the
“beginning of a very long battle.”
“The law has been struck on
technicalities, so the big picture is
still there,” he said.
Lawmakers could seek to
reintroduce a bill back into
parliament, a potentially lengthy
process, with the last such bill
taking four years from introduction
to the final vote.
- ‘Law is intact’ -
David Bahati, the MP who
introduced the bill — which initially
proposed the death penalty as
punishment — said he still backed
the law.
“It is a setback but not a major
one, because the law is intact,” he
told AFP.
“The law is good for Uganda, no
matter what court decides.”
Outspoken anti-gay preacher
Pastor Martin Ssempa led prayers
before the hearing inside the
tightly packed courtroom calling
for the judges to uphold the law.
Ssempa had already warned he
feared the “judicial abortion of our
bill” due to international pressure.
“We are determined to appeal this
case at the Supreme Court,” he
said.
Ssempa said the petition was
being pushed to polish Uganda’s
international reputation before
Museveni travels to Washington
next week to meet President
Barack Obama at a landmark US-
Africa summit.
Critics have said Museveni signed
the law to win domestic support
ahead of a presidential election
scheduled for 2016, which will be
his 30th year in power.
But Western nations made a raft of
aid cuts to Uganda’s government
in protest since the law was
passed.
Washington froze some aid
programmes, as well as cancelling
military air exercises and barring
entry to the US for specific
Ugandan officials involved in
“human rights abuses”, including
against the gay community.
Rights groups, who said the law
triggered a sharp increase in
arrests and assaults of members of
the country’s lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgender community,
welcomed the decision.
“We are pleased that this law
cannot be enforced and entrench
further abuses and discrimination,”
said Maria Burnett from Human
Rights Watch.
Homophobia is widespread in
Uganda, where American-style
evangelical Christianity is on the
rise.
Gay men and women face frequent
harassment and threats of
violence.
The 10 petitioners — including two
Ugandan rights organisations —
had also claimed that the law
violated the constitutional right to
privacy and dignity, as well as the
right to be free from
discrimination, and cruel, inhuman
and degrading treatment.
But the judges stuck down the law
based on only the first section, the
issue of quorum, before any of
those issues were discussed.