UGANDAN GAY RIGHTS ACTIVISTS DECLARE VICTORY

UNCLAS KAMPALA 000070 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PGOV PHUM KDEM UG SUBJECT: UGANDAN GAY RIGHTS ACTIVISTS DECLARE VICTORY REF: 08 KAMPALA 1007 ¶1. Summary: In a landmark ruling, the Uganda High Court on December 22 declared that constitutional rights apply to all people, regardless of their sexual orientation. The Court ruled that the Government of Uganda (GOU) violated the rights of members of the Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG),a local non-governmental organization (NGO),when authorities raided the home of Victor Mukasa in Kampala in July 2005. Gay rights activists are using the case to affirm theQ constitutional right to privacy in home and person. End Summary. ¶2. The Uganda High Court ruling stems from a police raid on the home of Victor Mukasa, a transgender person, without a search warrant in July 2005. Police seized documents related to Mukasa's work as a human rights activist for people who are transgender, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and intersex (LGBT). Police arrested, and later released Mukasa and Yvonne Oyoo, a Kenyan guest at Mukasa's home, and allegedly treated them in a degrading and inhuman manner. In 2006, Mukasa filed a case in the High Court under Article 50 of the Constitution of Uganda for the enforcement of fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed in Articles 20 and 45 of the Constitution. ¶3. In making the ruling, Justice Stella Amoko Arach, declared that the actions of the police against Mukasa and Oyoo were unconstitutional, inhuman and contravened the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which emphasizes that fundamental human rights apply to all persons. Arach agreed with defense lawyer Ladislaus Rwakafuzi that Oyoo was inhumanly treated when police allegedly fondled her breast and ordered her to strip naked before the public. Justice Arach dismissed the Local Council Chairman's claims that he found Mukasa and Oyo in a local bar kissing. He had said he arrested them to prevent a mob from lynching them. ¶4. According to court documents, the High Court directed the government to pay $6,500 (13 million shillings) to compensate Mukasa and Oyoo for the degrading treatment they received at the hands of the police. Mukasa was awarded $1,500 (3 million shillings) for violation of privacy rights while Oyoo was awarded $5,000 (10 million shillings) for humiliation, injury and trauma. The court also awarded the applicants the costs of the application. ¶5. Arach's judgment found that several articles of the Constitution applied to all Ugandans, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Arach ruled that Article 23 states that no person shall be deprived of personal liberty. Article 24 provides for respect for human dignity and protection from inhuman treatment, and states that no person shall be subjected to any form of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, or punishment. Arach also cited Article 27, which states that no person shall be subjected to unlawful search of the person, home or other property of that person; or unlawful entry by others of the premises of that person or property. In addition, it states no person shall be subjected to interference with the privacy of that person's home, correspondence, communication or other property. ¶6. Mukasa was overjoyed and overwhelmed by the court's ruling. She said "my spirit was in that courtroom. My spirit is in union with all Ugandan LGBT and intersex people. I am happy that justice has come. The fact that the Uganda High Court is relying on international human rights conventions is a good sign that justice will come to everyone in Uganda some day. It was my dream that justice would come and it has come." Gay rights activists from the East African region applauded the fairness of the court. They vowed to work with the individual governments to sensitize them to the rights of LGBT people. -------------- Comment -------------- ¶7. Gay rights activists widely hailed the judgment as a positive development in the promotion of the rights of LGBT people in Uganda. The case demonstrates that gay activists can seek redress for their grievances in the courts in Uganda. The Uganda Human Rights Commission hopes that in the future, the activists will utilize Ugandan institutions, rather than appealing to international press and non-governmental organizations, to establish basic rights at home (reftel). Nonetheless, Ugandan society remains strongly and viscerally opposed to homosexuality, and SMUG will need to continue working with domestic human rights groups and the courts in order to prevent and seek redress in future cases of abuse and discrimination against sexual minorities. BROWNING