A Ugandan court, on Tuesday, March 12, 2024, rendered a decision dismissing a petition put forth by an LGBT advocacy group, as communicated by legal representation for the petitioner. Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) initiated the legal action in the nation’s high court in 2015 subsequent to the refusal of the government’s registrar of companies to formally register it, a process essential for the organization to function within legal parameters. The registrar justified the refusal on grounds that the organization’s name was deemed “undesirable” and contended that it advocated for individuals whose lifestyles contravened Ugandan statutes. In 2022, the Ugandan government suspended SMUG’s activities due to its lack of official registration.
Homosexual relations have been outlawed in Uganda since the era of British colonial rule, with the country instituting one of the most stringent anti-LGBT legislations globally in May, which criminalizes the “promotion” of homosexuality.
The recent court ruling addressed an appeal stemming from a 2018 decision by a lower court that ruled against SMUG, an influential entity within Uganda’s LGBT rights sphere. Edward Ssemambo, legal counsel for SMUG, relayed to Reuters that the court determined the registrar’s refusal of SMUG’s registration was justified, citing the organization’s mission to advance the rights and well-being of individuals whose behavior is proscribed under Ugandan law.
The appellate court rendering this judgment also functions as the constitutional court, expected to imminently adjudicate a challenge to the Anti-Homosexuality Act, which includes severe penalties such as the death penalty for specific same-sex acts and lengthy terms of imprisonment. A hearing on the challenge to the law took place in December, with LGBT activists anticipating a forthcoming verdict.
Ssemambo expressed reservations regarding the implications of Tuesday’s ruling, particularly in light of the imminent decision on the anti-LGBT legislation. He suggested that broader political and economic considerations could influence the judges’ deliberations on the matter.
(Reuters)
