Summary:

• Uganda’s Constitutional Court has set December 11 for a consolidated hearing of four petitions challenging the legality of the Anti-Homosexuality Law enacted in May 2023, with petitioners, including MP Fox Odoi and journalist Andrew Mwenda, agreeing to cooperate for a swift trial.

Kampala, Uganda | THE BLACK EXAMINER | The Constitutional Court in Uganda has scheduled a hearing for December 11 to address four petitions challenging the legality of the Anti-Homosexuality Law passed in May 2023. This decision follows an agreement among petitioners to consolidate the four petitions and 19 applications submitted by various individuals and groups, including West Budama Northeast MP Fox Odoi, Uganda’s Deputy High Commissioner to South Africa Kintu Nyango, journalist Andrew Mwenda, Makerere University Law professors Sylvia Tamale and Busingye Kabumba, as well as several civil society organizations.

Justice Geoffrey Kiryabwire, presiding as a single judge on November 28, supported the attorney general’s proposal to consolidate the petitions, emphasizing the need for a swift trial. He urged cooperation among the parties, questioning the necessity of four separate petitions targeting the same law. Odoi, a former legal counsel to President Yoweri Museveni, affirmed the petitioners’ commitment to follow the court’s guidance and consented to the consolidation.

However, the court acknowledged an application by Pastor Martin Ssempa, seeking to join the attorney general in defending the Anti-Homosexuality Law, which will be addressed before the main petition hearing.

The petitioners argue various grounds, including the claim that the Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2023 contradicts a 2014 Constitutional Court decision that nullified a similar law, rendering it inconsistent with Article 92 of the constitution. They contend that the Act was rushed through parliament in six days instead of the mandated 45-day period, and that it was enacted on May 2 without sufficient public participation. In response, the attorney general asserts that the law’s provisions align with the constitution and international agreements, emphasizing that it did not alter the 2014 court decision based on procedural grounds.

Government lawyers argue that the Act underwent extensive consultations with the public and their representatives, both in written and oral form, and that the 2014 decision was not based on the law’s substance but on a lack of quorum. The court has called for the parties’ cooperation and commitment not to make amendments during the trial.