The hearing of a case in which six people, including West Budama MP Fox Odoi, are challenging the Anti-Homosexuality Law 2023, starts on Monday at the Constitutional Court in Kampala.

Other petitioners include Uganda’s Ambassador to South Africa Kintu Nyango, Veteran Journalist Andrew Mwenda, and Makerere University Law professors; Sylvia Tamale and Businye Kabumba.

Five justices led by the Deputy Chief Justice, Richard Buteera, will hear the petition. Other justices on the panel are Geoffrey Kiryabwire, Muzamiru Kibeedi, Christopher Gashirabake, and Monica Mugenyi.

The Attorney General is being represented by the Director for Civil Litigation Martin Mwambustya, while the petitioners by Nicholas Opiyo, Henry Byansi and Derrick Tukwasiibwe.

In May this year, President Yoweri Museveni assented to the Bill, a move which turned it into law, which criminalises homosexuality in Uganda.

It imposes capital punishment for some behaviour, including having gay sex when HIV positive, and stipulates a 20-year sentence for “promoting” homosexuality.

On Thursday last week, the justices allowed Pr. Martin Ssempa of Makerere Community Church, to join the Attorney General, Kiryowa Kiwanuka, to defend the Anti-Homosexuality Law 2023.

Ssempa’s application seeks to defend the law on ethical and moral grounds.

His application was accepted together with that of Family Life Network and the Secretariat of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), who have joined as friends of court to assist it in providing more information on why the law should either be upheld or scraped off from the law books.

However, the same court dismissed 11 applications, on grounds that it will not benefit from their expertise based on the documents tabled before the panel.

The disallowed applications were for Southern African Litigation Centre, E Tendayi Achiume, VIIV Healthcare UK Limited, Glaxosmithline Services Unlimited, MSD Limited, Gilead Sciences Incorporation and Center for Legal Applied Studies.

“The applications brought nothing new to help the judges in jurisprudence, and as such, the court is not satisfied to warrant admission,” Buteera ruled.

Arguments

They argue that the process of enacting the Ant-Homosexuality Act 2023 without meaningful and adequate public participation was inconsistent with and in contravention of Articles 1,2,8A,20,36,38,79 and objective II (1) of the National Objectives and Directive Principles of the State Policy of the Constitution.

Court documents indicate that the conduct of the speaker of the 11th parliament, Anita Annet Among, during the second and third readings of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2023, on March 21 and May 2, this year, amounted to bias and is inconsistent with and in contravention of Article 89(1) and (2) of the constitution.

They state that sections 1,2,3 and 6 of the Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2023, in criminalising consensual same-sex sexual activity among adults in private, are inconsistent with and in contravention of the right to equality and non-discrimination guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 (1) and (2) of the constitution.

“Section 4 of the Anti-Sexuality Act, 2023, in providing for criminal liability of every child below 18 years, is inconsistent with and in contravention of the rights of the child guaranteed under Articles 20,34,45,8A and 287,” reads part of the petition.

The petitioners further assert that sections 9 and 11(1) and (2)(d) of the Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2023, by making it an offence for any person to allow and or lease or sub-lease premises to be used for purposes of homosexuality or “activities that encourage homosexuality,” is consistent with and in contravention of the principle of legality guaranteed under Articles 20, 28(12) and 44(c) of the constitution.