Constitutional Court Nullifies Key Sections of Anti-Homosexuality Act
![Constitutional Court Nullifies Key Sections of Anti-Homosexuality Act](https://poatvuganda.com/uploads/images/2024/04/image_750x_660d345c4f5fc.jpg)
Uganda's Constitutional Court has delivered its judgment on the controversial Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2023, declaring it compliant with the Constitution except for four contentious provisions.
Led by Deputy Chief Justice Richard Buteera, a panel of five justices pronounced the ruling, nullifying Sections 3(2)(c), 9, 11(2)(d), and 14 of the Act for contravening the Constitution.
The nullified sections criminalized various aspects related to homosexuality, including letting premises for homosexual purposes, failure to report homosexual acts to the police, and engagement in homosexual acts resulting in the transmission of terminal illnesses.
The decision stems from consolidated petitions challenging the Act's constitutionality, filed by 22 private citizens and human rights activists.
The background to the case involves the passing of the Anti-Homosexuality Act by the Ugandan Parliament in response to public outcry and media discussions surrounding homosexuality.
However, the Act faced immediate legal scrutiny, leading to the filing of constitutional petitions by concerned individuals and rights advocates.
In rendering its decision, the Constitutional Court considered several factors, including international jurisprudence, the absence of global consensus on sexual orientation and gender identity rights, and conflicts between individual autonomy and societal interests.
The court also acknowledged Uganda's socio-cultural norms and values, emphasizing the Act's reflection of the country's societal realities.
Despite upholding the majority of the Act's provisions, the court's ruling represents a significant step towards protecting human rights and promoting inclusivity in Uganda.
The decision has drawn mixed reactions from various stakeholders, with human rights activists applauding the nullification of discriminatory provisions while some conservative voices express disappointment.