NCAHSAU
NATIONAL COALITION AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY & SEXUAL ABUSES IN UGANDA
19th November 2012
The Honorable Speaker of
Parliament
The Republic of Uganda,
Kampala.
C.c:
Hon Stephen Tashobya, Chairman, Committee on Legal & Parliamentary Affairs
C.c:
Members of Parliament
C.c:
All leaders
Ref: The Anti Homosexuality
Bill, 2009 offers no solution to the homosexuality challenge: clean up the
systems; for that is the best Christmas gift you can ever give to Ugandans
Thanks
for your continued contributions toward nation-building, especially your public
stand against homosexuality and sexual abuses in Uganda, evidenced by your
consideration of the 2009
anti-homosexuality Bill in line of your desire that this country must be a
better one to live in.
I
refer to our Report And Petition On
Homosexuality In Uganda to you dated September 30th 2009 in
which we highlighted the homosexuality problem and showed need for an inquiry, and the petition
against the Anti-homosexuality Bill 2009, dated 7/7/2010, both acknowledged
received but seem to have been totally ignored; and the now very populist,
opportunistic, reactionary and hypocritical push by religious leaders that Parliament
proceeds fast to pass the bill, riding on the popular demand by the masses that
homosexuality is curtailed.
It
needs to be clearly understood that the basis of our anti-homosexuality
initiatives since 2006 which culminated into formation of the NCAHSAU in October 2008 to sensitize
the public about the challenge and dangers of homosexuality and sexual abuses,
and the now hurried populist,
opportunistic and hypocritical bill ‘against’ homosexuality which is before
Parliament, was the health and emotional plights of victims and their
failure to access justice and redress, and the fact that many youths (both
sexes) are forced or lured into it in schools, churches and local communities.
Sadly,
the Uganda Police CID, in effort to cover up their dirty role in the Pr Robert
Kayanja sodomy saga has continued to work hard to portray the awareness
campaign as baseless, heresies and frame-ups intended to tarnish people’s
reputations without due consideration that many victims exist in religious
entities, schools, work places, homes and other communities. And for that
reason, some of us were framed, falsely accused of conspiring to tarnish Pr
Robert Kayanja’s reputation and trade, denied opportunity to defend ourselves
and wrongly convicted just because we dared to receive, counsel and refer to
Police young men who accused him of sodomizing them. We have witnessed not only
corruption but abuse of the systems: Police, DPP and courts of law, of the
highest order.
Therefore,
though we commend Parliament for determining Uganda’s legal paths and fully
support all efforts toward enacting good, relevant, fair and applicable laws,
we feel all diligence should be taken to ensure just that by not hurrying to
enact populist laws that can end up hurting good causes.
As
you may well remember, in 2009 as the nationwide campaign against homosexuality
and sexual abuses in Uganda launched in October 2008 progressed, Hon David
Bahati and his team came up with the anti-homosexuality Bill 2009. Though it
may have been well-intentioned, we feel that it will not achieve what many
Ugandans think it will achieve; is a waste of precious time, financial and
other resources that should have been applied more productively elsewhere
because of the following:
- Existing
laws are sufficient if only enforced:
On
the Penal Code are very good laws sufficient to address homosexuality and the
abuse of children which the proposed law is purportedly intended to address:
a. The
Penal Code Act (Cap 120):
Section
145 on un-natural sex offenses also criminalizes same sex sexual activity. In
May 2010, this same law, inherited from colonial times was used in Malawi to
convict and sentence to 14 years in jail for
gross indecency and unnatural acts a practicing gay couple, Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chumbalanga, only
that Malawian President Bingu wa Mutharika pardoned them due to foreign
pressure (Daily Monitor 31 May 2010).
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon ensured their release!
Back
home in Uganda, this same law was used by His Worship Byaruhanga Jesse R, Chief
Magistrate Luwero, to convict on own plea of guilt and sentence one Kavuma
Sadique Fahad, a teacher of Zakayo Musisi Memorial Primary School, Luwero, to 3
years on each of the two counts of sodomizing two of his primary 7 pupils (Nakibinge
Ssozi Dan, 13 years old, Criminal Case No 458 of 2010 (Annex 1), and Dan Nkoyoyo, 14 years old, Criminal Case No 459 of
2010 (Annex 2). Because of the ages
of victims, this offender would have been more appropriately charged under The Penal Code Amendment Act 2007.
It
is therefore improper to claim that this law is insufficient when this man was arrested,
prosecuted, convicted and sentenced only after our intervention and the story serialized
on WBS TV investigative program, Vumbula and covered by the Red Pepper.
b. The
Constitution
The
Constitution of Uganda only considers marriage when between two people of opposite
sexes: male and female (man and woman). Any relationship other than that is
un-constitutional. So if there is a law that protects the traditional
heterosexual family and marriage, it is the constitution.
Article 31.3 specifically says: “Marriage shall be entered into with the
free consent of the man and woman intending to marry.”
It
neither says man and man or woman and woman intending to marry. Therefore, even
a consensual sexual relationship between two adults of the same sex is not only
criminal under the Penal Code Act, Cap 120, section 145, but in breach of
Article 31.3 of the Constitution.
The
argument that this Anti-homosexuality Bill, 2009 is intended to protect the
traditional heterosexual marriage, family values and culture holds no water
when already provided for by the Constitution and only needs enforcement all
times. Further argument that it will stop homosexuals getting married in places
of worship makes no sense when the majority of Ugandan heterosexuals couples
simply cohabit, and homosexuals can choose to simply follow suit and cohabit.
c. The
Penal Code Amendment Act 2007
This
law was made to give equal protection to male and female children who are below
18 years of age against sexual abuse and exploitation. It deems them lacking
capacity to bargain for sex.
Section 2 of this Amendment specifically says:
“2. Section 129 of the Penal code is replaced:
The Principal Act is amended by substituting for section the following
new sections:
129. ‘Defilement of persons under eighteen years of age:
1. Any person who performs a sexual act with another
person who is below the age of eighteen years commits a felony known as
defilement and is on conviction liable to life imprisonment.
2. Any person
who attempts to perform a sexual act with another person who is below the
age of eighteen years commits an offense and is on conviction liable to
imprisonment not exceeding eighteen years.
3. Any person
who performs a sexual act with another person who is below the age of
eighteen years in any of the circumstances specified in subsection 4 commits a
felony called aggravated defilement and is on conviction by the High Court
liable to suffer death.
4. The circumstances referred to in subsection 3 are
as follows:
a)
Where the person against whom the offense is committed
is below the age of fourteen years;
b)
Where the offender is infected with the Human
Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV);
c)
Where the offender is a parent or guardian of or a
person in authority over the person against whom the offense is committed;
d)
Where the victim of the offense is a person with a
disability; or
e)
Where the offender is a serial offender.
5. Any person who attempts to perform a sexual act
with another person below the age of eighteen years in any of the circumstances
specified in subsection 4 commits an offense and is liable on conviction to
imprisonment for life.
6. Where a
person is charged with the offense under this section that person shall
undergo a medical examination as to his or her Human Immunodeficiency Virus
(HIV) status.
7. In this section:
Ø “Disability” means a substantial
functional limitation of daily life activities caused by physical, mental or
sensory impairment and environment barriers resulting in limited participation;
Ø “Serial offender” means a person
means a person who has a previous conviction for the offense of defilement or
aggravated defilement;
Ø “Sexual act” means:
a)
Penetration of the vagina, mouth or anus, however
slight, of any person by a sexual organ;
b)
The unlawful use of any object or organ by a person on
another person’s sexual organ;
Ø “Sexual organ” mean a vagina
or a penis
129A: Child to child sex:
1.
Where the offender in the case of any offense under
section 129 is a child under the age of twelve years, the matter shall be dealt
with as required by Part V of the Children Act
2.
Where an offense under section 129 is committed by a
male child and a female child upon each other when each is not below the age of
twelve years of age, each of the offenders shall be dealt with by Part X of the
Children Act.
129B: Payment of compensation to victims of
defilement:
1.
Where a person is convicted of defilement or
aggravated defilement under section 129, court may, in addition to any sentence
imposed on the offender, order that the victim of the offense be paid
compensation by the offender for any physical, sexual and psychological harm
caused to the victim by the offense.
2.
The amount of compensation shall be determined by the
court and the court shall take into account the extent of harm suffered by the
victim of the offence, the degree of force used by the offender and medical and
other expenses incurred by the victim as a result of the offence”
Copy of this Penal Code Amendment 2007, thoroughly discussed, passed and
assented to by H.E. President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni is attached for your
perusal (See Annex 3).
Surprisingly,
most Police officers and Resident State Attorneys supposed to ensure its
enforcement are ignorant of not only its provisions, but its existence
altogether and even if they do, they never implement it.
Similarly, most Parliamentarians
seem ignorant about it despite the fact that some, including the mover of the
Bill, Hon David Bahati must have participated in its formulation process (unless
they missed its sessions or simply never paid attention as it was debated and
passed) otherwise, they would not have come up with the Anti-homosexuality Bill
2009.
To prove that
some know but may just be duplicating laws to please the masses is the fact
that key chunks of this Penal Code Amendment
2007 on Aggravated defilement
were just copied and pasted (imported) into
the much publicised ‘Anti homosexuality
bill 2009’ to cater for ‘Aggravated Homosexuality.’
This cannot be a mere co-incidence!
Apparently, the
greatest and most important aim of the Hon Bahati Anti Homosexuality Bill 2009: protecting
children is better catered for by this Penal
Code Amendment 2007.
Sections of the Anti Homosexuality Bill that have attracted most
attention of Ugandans (who think there is no law as the rhetoric goes) to support it, and fury from the West with threats of cutting aid are already part of the assented to law and need not be repeated. The children are protected, both male and
female against both heterosexual
and homosexual abusers (defilers / paedophiles).
What now remains to be seen is the will
to enforce this law that has been on our law books since 2007 so that it bites perpetrators of sexual abuses of
children.
Why should we then
pass a contentious or weaker law where the maximum sentence on conviction is
years in jail when we have one that is not being enforced where the maximum
sentence is death!
The argument that
the Anti-homosexuality Bill 2009 will stop procurement, promoting,
disseminating literature and other pornographic materials concerning the
offense of homosexuality is so weak and can be addressed when dealing with every
kind of pornography irrespective of sexual inclination. There is no point enacting
a law that deals with just homosexuality pornography while leaving out
heterosexuality pornography which is equally damaging and wrecking the lives of
youths.
Besides, once an
activity is illegal, it is obvious that indulging in it is tantamount to
committing an illegality and therefore an offense.
- The
Anti-homosexuality Bill 2009 not only lacks basis but complicates the
challenge and fight against homosexuality because of the following:
a)
Part ii section 6: Confidentiality
Clause 2 gives court
powers to block the media from court proceedings:
Though we agree with confidentiality, we disagree with giving court powers
to block the media from hearings on pretext of ‘protecting victim children’ or as it ‘may consider appropriate.’ The media has sufficient professional
ethics and codes to protect victim children and other parties and must not be
denied access to proceedings, no matter the excuse.
The
clause can be abused by corrupt courts to protect powerful offenders from
exposure.
Besides,
this clause conflicts not only with the constitution of Uganda which guarantees
all people of Uganda the right to
information (Article 41) and freedom
of speech and expression (Article 29), but also conflicts with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
Article 19 which guarantees the
right to freedom of opinion and expression.
Clause 3 penalizes journalists: Just like the previous clause, we disagree with penalizing the media
for publishing ‘... names and personal
circumstances or any other information tending to establish the victim’s
identity without authority of court.’ There
is no doubt that it conflicts with both Uganda’s constitution and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
As a matter of fact, prior to the proposed Bill and after, it is the media
(not religious institutions now riding on the populist tide to push for the
bill, or institutions and agencies of Government) which has diligently played
its role to expose homosexuality, the plight of victims and the power and
impunity of culprits. Had this clause
been in force, most, if not all would be penalized.
This clause can be abused by corrupt courts just to deny the public the
right to information.
Besides, considering the penalties involved, this clause may intimidate the
media and stop it from running any stories no matter how much victims may want
their stories known.
.
This clause can be used to protect powerful homosexuals while strangling
the media to the disadvantage of victims and society, especially children.
Apparently, most evil doers fear exposure in the media more than they fear actions
in courts of law for they know how to beat the systems.
Part
iii section 9: Procuring homosexuality by threats:
Clause
2 provides: ‘A person shall not be convicted of
homosexuality under this section upon the evidence of one witness only, unless
corroborated in some material particular by evidence implicating the accused.’
Instead of making it
easier to prove homosexuality,
convict offenders and deliver justice and redress to victims, this clause makes
it more difficult to do so.
It
is common sense that except in
miraculous circumstances, no third parties can witness live homosexual
activity because of its secretiveness as a sexual act.
Secondly,
except for one time or amateur offenders, serial
offenders may not be that foolish to attract witnesses or leave incriminating
evidence.
Yet
even where corroborative evidence exists, it is possible to compromise
witnesses and the investigative machinery, including the Police surgeon just to
kill cases.
Besides,
it is possible to offend, traumatize and intimidate a victim into silence that
by the time the same gains courage to seek help or justice, verifiable evidence
of the act is no more.
It
ought to be understood that absence of evidence of homosexuality doesn’t mean
the offence wasn’t committed, just as disappearance of physical signs of hurt
doesn’t necessarily mean a victim’s total healing. It needs to be noted that
emotional hurt is more damaging and lasting than physical hurt, is cause for
many victims’ addiction to drugs and the very reason circumstantial evidence in
sexual offenses is very important.
Therefore far from
protecting children and easing justice and redress to victims, this clause gives pedophile and other offenders the green light to continue their
practice more wisely and secretively without incriminating witnesses and
corroborative evidence.
Part
iii section 14: Failure to disclose the offence:
This clause requires all
people in authority to report homosexuality within 24 hours: This is laying
trap for virtually all adult Ugandans.
This clause turns all well positioned Ugandans, including spiritual / religious
leaders, counselors, medical doctors, political and others who owe their
clientele a duty of confidentiality into state informers.
It
also turns desperate parents, guardians and household heads struggling with
problems and challenges of parenting and families, into spies on members of
their households.
It
similarly turns employers: directors, managers, supervisors, etc into spies on the
sexual lives of their employees and subordinates.
It
makes silence a criminal offence just as speaking out can prove to be a grave
unwritten offence because of high
corruption and abuse of the Police, Directorate of Public Prosecutions and
judicial systems.
It
dismantles all ethical codes of conduct
with regard to confidentiality, scares
people from confidentiality and kills the spirit of love, care and concern for
other people that has characterized the traditions of all the people in Uganda
and religious fiber, and contravenes the spirit of nationalism, care and
concern for the weak and voiceless that formed the core and fiber of the
National Resistance Armed struggle.
We
believe that whereas you may counsel victims to overcome pain, fears and
stigma, and file complaints, you can’t compel them or their offenders to
recount what really happened.
There
is even no guarantee that victims who file complaints will maintain their
statements, either because of harassments or compromising offers given them, or
trauma which curtails memory power.
During
2008 and 2009, under The National
Coalition Against Homosexuality and Sexual Abuses in Uganda, I and my
colleagues helped some young men who confessed to have been sodomized to seek
justice. After being compromised, the Police CID conspired with suspects to kill
all the cases, frame, persecute and harass us to intimidate and silence all
other victims that may have contemplated breaking silence and seeking justice
and redress.
It
is no secret that I and my colleagues Pr Martin Sempa, Pr Michael David Kyazze,
Pr Robert Kaira, Deborah Anita Kyomuhendo and David Mukalazi whose own
complaint was never investigated were framed, prosecuted, denied opportunity to
defend ourselves and wrongly convicted with all due impunity on tramped up
conspiracy charges filed against us by Pr Robert Kayanja, allegedly to tarnish
his reputation and trade with sodomy just because we tried to help young men
who came pleading for mercy, accusing him of sodomizing / sexually abusing them.
We have witnessed systems used and abused, and Police officers including the
CID boss tell lies against us, on oath, and with all impunity!
(It is sad and very unfortunate that we
can’t address the homosexuality challenge without reference to homosexuality
accusations against religious leaders in our midst).
The
hostile environment we have already encountered in the court system and ability
of Police CID to manufacture and / or falsify evidence, and / or deliberately
ignore evidence are just enough to convince us and every right thinking Ugandan
that given the rampant corruption in our systems, justice and redress for
victims must still be a mere dream no matter how tough our laws may be.
This
clause, Part iii section 14, also conflicts with Article 29 of Uganda’s
constitution:
With
that in mind, it tramples on the right to freedom of conscience and speech as
enshrined in Article 29 of our
constitution. A person can write or speak out on anything if certain that no
trouble beyond what can be managed shall arise. If he or she chooses to keep
quiet, it is his / her right. You can’t force him / her.
This
clause also contravenes the right to privacy and professional / ethical
confidentiality.
You can’t compel spiritual
leaders, medical practitioners, counselors and other professionals to breach
confidentiality of devotees, patients or clients who open up to them. It not only contravenes the
constitution but also their work ethics.
It can compel both victims and those struggling to quit the vice never to
open up or even seek medical or emotional counsel; and compel religious, medical
and other counselors to discriminate them when providing services.
This
clause can be abused by people who want to destroy others:
Enemies,
rivals or competitors of people in authority may use it, secretly plant
homosexuals then report them (people in authority) for not reporting the
offence, just to hurt or cripple them.
This
clause spares people who conspire to deliberately kill cases:
This
clause omits penalizing people in state investigative and other systems that deliberately
and with impunity harass, torture and frame victims and Good Samaritans who
dare to report homosexuality and pedophilia, and kill cases due to corruptions
and order from above. It is so
unfair and unrealistic to penalize a person who doesn’t report an offence, yet
leave that one who kills the cases reported.
Killing cases not only diminishes people’s trust in
the entire investigative and judicial process but encourages mob-justice. Our Report And Petition On Homosexuality In
Uganda to Parliament dated September 30th 2009 clearly spells
the problems and challenges facing the anti-homosexuality and sexual abuses
campaign.
Rather
than target people in authority (medical personnel, parents, guardians,
counselors, spiritual leaders, employers, and others who by virtue of their
positions may get to know about homosexuality offences) this clause should have
specifically targeted people in all state systems that deliberately and with
impunity conspire to harass, torture and frame victims, Good Samaritans and
others who dare to report homosexuality, and kill cases because of corruptions,
connections and order from above.
In all cases, people who
volunteer information on homosexuality must be protected from any miscarriage of justice, not
under the Police Witness Protection
known to detain and harass victims.
We
believe this is the only way to build confidence and encourage victims and
other people to report homosexuality and other sexual abuse offences; not
compelling them with threats of reprimands if they do not.
- Homosexuals
know where to hide:
As
already stated in our Petition against this bill, besides using accomplices in
the systems that are supposed to enforce the law and ensure justice and redress,
homosexuals hide in the constitution.
It
is a fact that though breaking the penal code, consenting adult homosexuals can
hide in Article 27 of the Constitution of Uganda
which guarantees the right to privacy of one’s home for every person in Uganda
Seriousness in fighting
homosexuality entails Parliament to first amend Article 27 of the constitution
to exclude homosexuals from the right to privacy. If not done, homos may deliberately
consummate to be arrested, then claim persecution and infringement on their
right to privacy, and seek monetary redress from the Attorney General just like lesbian
Victor Mukasa and her female partner
Yvonne Oyo hid under articles 20-45 and applied to High Court under article
50 of the constitution and were awarded U Shs 13,000,000 (Victor Juliet Mukasa and Yvonne Oyo Vs Attorney General Miscellaneous
Cause No 24/06). Awards may be used to lure the vulnerable into
homosexuality.
In
the Victor Mukasa case, probably aware of the supremacy of the Constitution and
International obligations, the Attorney General never appealed. It is a
precedent applicable to all lower courts.
Besides,
in the High Court, Kampala, Miscellaneous
Cause No 163 of 2010 before Hon Mr Justice V. F. Musoke-Kibuuka: Kasha Jacqueline, David Kato Kisuule and
Onziema Patience Vs Rolling Stone and Giles Muhame (Annex 4), the applicants
were awarded Shs 1,500,000 each plus costs of their suit because of
infringement inter alia on their rights to privacy by the respondents.
Therefore,
with the constitution interpreted to guarantee the right to privacy of even
homosexuals, no law can effectively handle consenting
adults unless the constitution is amended to exclude them.
- Uganda’s
problem is not absence of good laws, but lack of the will in Systems to
enforce the law and ensure justice, fairness and redress:
There
is no doubt that the situation in institutions like the Police, Directorate of
Public Prosecutions and judiciary is wanting. In many situations, these
institutions are used and abused with all due impunity to harass the weak and
frustrate justice and redress for the weak and voiceless that many people have
not only lost trust in them, but have ceased respect for them: they only fear
them and turn to them as a formality but with no hope of ever accessing justice
and redress if the offender is rich, powerful or connected to ‘Order from above.’
There
is need to clean up the systems wherein cases reported are killed and which
have compelled many Ugandans to resort to mob-justice. We find it very
difficult to refer more victims to Police having been not only frustrated, but
greatly tormented in our earlier endeavor.
It
should not only be a matter of enacting laws, but ensuring that they are
enforced without bias.
- The
Anti Homosexuality Bill 2009 defines lack of understanding of the problem:
Ø It presumes that systems: Police, DPP
and judiciary are perfect and actually work when not.
Ø It doesn’t put into consideration causes
of indulgence into homosexuality.
Ø Simple logic dictates that no qualified
prudent medical doctor can prescribe treatment for a patient without diagnosis
of the problem. Therefore, no legislator
can make appropriate laws without diagnosing the problems he / she wants
addressed in-depth.
We already have many laws
in Uganda, some of which prescribe death sentences but
people still commit crimes, including aggravated defilement, gruesome murders
and human sacrifice with impunity. Besides,
despite convictions, it is very many years since any death sentence was last executed.
So why pass a law whose enforcement will not pass?
There
is need to understand why, despite existing laws, crime, including homosexuality
continues to rise, with authentic
empirical evidence.
As former Singapore Premier Lee
Kwan Yew said; ‘To understand the
present and anticipate the future, one must know enough of the past; enough to
have a sense of the history of a people;’ we believe there is no way we can
get to the roots of homosexuality and define the best way forward in terms of
laws, policies and other interventions without an independent inquiry.
Therefore,
Parliament should not simply ignore demands for an inquiry and jump to make a
law whose basis is superficial and reactionary, and whose impact must be of no positive
consequence since it is still to be enforced by the same stinking corrupt systems:
Police, DPP and judiciary.
We
believe that any law on homosexuality, however effective simply solves 1% of
the problem, leaving 99% to be solved by other interventions.
- The
best way forward:
- There is need to admit and localize
the problem without blaming it on the Western World influence as if when
the West got out of Uganda, homosexuality would be gone.
- Thoroughly
diagnose the problem
This
can be done through an inquiry mandated to investigate among others the following:
- The
extent of sodomy in
- The victims
in all aspects;
- The culprits
and their collaborators;
- The
plight and silence of victims;
- The role
of the helpers (Good Samaritans);
- The role
of the investigative machinery including the Police surgeons in killing
cases reported;
- The role
of order from above in killing cases.
The Anti
Homosexuality Bill 2009 proves to be very diversionary in this respect.
- Preventive measures:
To
address the challenge of homosexuality, there is need to address all the
factors that compel people into homosexuality bearing in mind that
homosexuality is not genetic, but a habit gradually learned.
There is therefore need
for among others, the following to be done:
- Establish a fully paid-for national
counseling system
where people’s social, spiritual, economic and other problems and
challenges can be addressed.
It is a known fact that many people
struggling with hetero-sexual pre-marital, marital, family, social and other
relationships get compelled to hate the opposite sex and settle for same-sex
attraction for solace and comfort and become potential recruits for
homosexuality. No tough law can compel them to change attitude.
Though some religious institutions offer
counseling, much of it is manipulation and many people fall prey to religious
mafia masquerading expert counselors.
- Establish a fully government
supported national sensitization campaign on homosexuality, its causes, dangers and
preventive package, just like it is with HIV.
- Robustly deal with hetero-sexual
rape and defilement,
one of the key factors compelling young females into homosexuality,
bearing in mind that there can’t be rape in marriage.
- Either let Government sponsor all
students in universities and tertiary institutions who cannot afford to pay for their
tuition, or give them long-term
loans which are repayable when they are in employment. This will save
many young people from homosexuality who get lured into indulgence when in
dire need of tuition money for their studies lest they drop out.
- Government robustly deals with
poverty and unemployment,
not by mere rhetoric, which are major causes of young people turning homosexuals
for a living. Blaming the West for their money which has homosexuality
strings attached is greatly missing the point.
- Curative
measures:
To
help those who voluntarily want to quit homosexuality, let there be a
rehabilitation / counseling system to help them back on course bearing in mind
that homosexuality is not born, but a habit that is gradually learned and
addicted to.
Finally, should the bill be passed, just be
sure that homosexuals will petition superior court to interpret its consistence
with the constitution and whether you like it or not, judgment will be in their
favor and Uganda will follow countries like India, China, Hongkong, Israel and US
as a nation where consensual homosexuality was legalized not by Acts of
parliament but through judicial decisions.
In
light of all the above, we call on you to drop the populist, opportunistic and reactionary
Anti-homosexuality bill 2009, initiate an independent inquiry as per petition
dated September 30th 2009, and consider the summary of our proposed
way forward. Otherwise, we are bound to have a law that makes it more difficult
to address the homosexuality challenge and prompt homosexuals to expedite their
legalization through judicial decisions. Let the two High Court decisions cited
be lesson enough.
We
re-iterate that Uganda’s problem is not
the laws, but systems supposed to enforce the laws to ensure justice and
redress to all, and include the Police, Directorate of Public Prosecutions
and judiciary. We have plenty of good laws on our books but systems have let us
down, and you know it!!
Therefore, be courageous
and clean up the systems: it is the best Christmas gift you can ever give to
Ugandans. The rest is a
mockery when systems are stinking rotten, favoring law breakers.
For
God and my Country.
Yours
sincerely,
For
and on behalf of NCAHSAU,
Moses Solomon Male
-
Pr / Executive Director Arising For Christ
- Publicity Secretary, National Committee on Cults
& False Teaching Awareness.
- Leader, National Coalition Against
Homosexuality & Sexual Abuses in Uganda.
256-772-479386 / 256-702-196511 msmalearch@gmail.com
