The landmark Constitutional Court ruling on Friday that nullified Uganda’s contentious Anti-Homosexuality Act 2014 could open the floodgates of litigation.

The law has been described by human-rights activists as draconian and, following the verdict, the groups could seize the opportunity to challenge the constitutionality of other controversial laws that have been passed recently.

The panel of five judges, led by acting Chief Justice Steven Kavuma, delivered a unanimous verdict that the anti-gay law was unconstitutional. President Yoweri Museveni assented to the law on February 24 after parliament passed it on December 20 last year.

READ: Ugandan court annuls anti-gay law

The judges ruled that parliament passed the law without quorum. They said Speaker Rebecca Kadaga ignored the advice of at least three people, including the prime minister and leader of government business, that the House lacked the quorum to pass the law.

The judges also awarded 50 per cent of the cost of the suit to the plaintiffs. The other members of the bench were Justices Augustine Nshimye, Solomon Balungi Bbosa, Rubby Aweri Opio and Eldad Mwangusya.

The executive director of the Foundation for Human Rights Initiative, Dr Livingstone Sewanyana, told The EastAfrican before the court ruling that the focus for human-rights activists was to challenge “obnoxious laws passed to preserve the regime’s grip on power.”

Undermine the constitution

Dr Sewanyana said: “It’s not just the anti-homosexuality law but several others whose passing, to a large extent, seeks to undermine the Constitution. “Any effort directed at undermining the Constitution is negative because all that is retrogressive action.

“I know the current regime is focused on survival; a regime in survival mode is not very much bothered about the nature or constitutionality of legislation. All legislation is intended to preserve the status quo.”

He argued that the repealing of such laws need not wait for another regime or constitution since the existing supreme law, which was promulgated in 1995, provides space for freedoms and rights as well as checks and balances on government to deliver rule of law.

“Our major business when opportunities present themselves is to repeal this legislation that does not conform to our Constitution,” he said.

The lead lawyer for the plaintiffs, Nicholas Opiyo, concurred with Dr Sewanyana that the ruling set a precedent to challenge similar laws passed illegally.
Parliament has in the past passed laws without quorum but attempts, especially by the opposition, to go to court have been thwarted by failure to obtain House documents.