VZCZCXRO7459
RR RUEHROV
DE RUEHKM #0070 0150940
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 150940Z JAN 09
FM AMEMBASSY KAMPALA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 1046
INFO RUCNIAD/IGAD COLLECTIVE

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