BY SYLVIA TAMALE

There has been a tendency in the media to treat victims of sexual violence differently, depending on their sexual orientation. Is there any difference if one is sexually assaulted because they are ‘gay’ or ‘straight?’

The Media Council seems to think so, judging by the outrageous treatment they meted out to Gaetano Jjuuko Kaggwa when he hosted a lesbian on his morning show. But the difference is actually non-existent, as the following comparison illustrates.

One afternoon in the early 1990s in Tororo district, an elderly woman called Regina Awor was walking down a village path when it started raining. She ran as fast as she could to the nearest hut in search of shelter. As she stood on the veranda under the thatch watching the downpour, the occupant of the hut, one Stephen Apai, emerged from behind the doorway, grabbed her and forced her inside. He repeatedly raped Awor; her yells for help were drowned by the rain and thunder.

Awor sought justice in the Uganda High Court. At the trial, Awor described what happened: “He made me his wife and worked on me.” The prosecutor wanted her to be more explicit, to provide a blow-by-blow account of what had happened in the hut on that fateful day. The court was packed with strangers and the traumatised Awor insisted on speaking figuratively. The prosecutor was desperate to prove the essential ingredients of rape — penile/vaginal penetration and lack of consent “beyond any reason of doubt.”

Justice Lugayizi let Stephen Apai off the hook because, in his view, Awor’s evidence was “vague and meaningless.” The judge said: “The complainant has only herself to blame for the fact that this case collapsed... She stubbornly refused to say exactly what took place inside the accused’s hut on the day in issue.”

Given the age, trauma, stigma and cultural sensibilities related to the violent crime of rape, such judgment was the height of insensitivity to the victim’s needs. Indeed, when one considers such realities and the low conviction rates for rape in Uganda, it is not surprising that women have little faith in the law providing the victim with a sense of justice.

In contrast to Awor’s case, on August 22, 2007 Victor Juliet Mukasa, a lesbian, was on a morning radio talkshow relating her experience of sexual violence. With her voice breaking with emotion, she graphically spoke of men forcing their penises not only into her vagina, but also into her mouth.

One week after the show, the Uganda Broadcasting Council suspended the presenter and the controller of the show for “allowing foul language” in their show.

The two cases I have recounted above clearly demonstrate the contradictory way in which the state treats issues of sexual violence. It is a state that cannot make its mind up whether it wants women to provide vivid details of their experiences of sexual assault or to shut up about them.

In the Awor case, the victim of assault was denied justice only because she tried to use “polite” or “clean” language to describe her experience. When Mukasa, another survivor of rape, called a spade a spade, the state cried foul and justice was denied.

Such hypocrisy is outstanding, and boldly reveals that the reality of violence against women is part of the patriarchal state. Justice for victims of sexual assault in a male-dominant society is skewed to favour the interests and values of those in power (heterosexual, middle class men...).

The fact that the crime of rape in our penal code falls under the chapter, “offences against morality” instead of the chapter, “offences against the person” is very telling, indeed. Rape is not primarily about morals, nor is it about sex, but control, power and dominance.

I urge all women to speak directly about the taboo subject of sexual violence — even if your voice shakes!

The writer is the Dean of Law,
Makerere University