Why Uganda’s New Anti-LGBTQ Bill Is a Crime Against Humanity

Uganda’s persecution of the LGBTQ community clearly meets the definition of crimes against humanity. 

Scholars can’t agree where the term “crimes against humanity” originated. It might come from the late 18th century when international abolitionists described the horrors of the transatlantic slave trade, which was then at its height. Some believe it came from the missionaries and journalists who witnessed the wide-spread atrocities happening in the Belgian Congo around the same time, while others have suggested that it came from the 1915 official Allied declaration condemning the Armenian genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire.

Regardless of the origin, the definition of crimes against humanity has slowly evolved over time. Today’s definition is based on 4 important milestones: 

1. Nuremberg Trials: in the aftermath of WW2, Allied forces realized the need to differentiate between the Nazi regime’s war crimes and crimes against humanity. The normal interpretation of war crimes couldn’t be applied to crimes committed by a government against their own people. Therefore, the Allied tribunal included one of the first official definitions of crimes against humanity in Article 6 (c): “murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds.” While this was enough at the time, the problem, though, was that crimes against humanity needed to be connected to war crimes. 
2. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia: after the breakup of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s, the world learned of the ethnic cleansing that had occurred at the hands of their own government. The UN created a special tribunal to investigate and prosecute common soldiers and leaders such as Slobodan Milošević. To do so, this tribunal expanded the definition of crimes against humanity to include, rape, torture, and imprisonment. While this was a step in the right direction, crimes against humanity still needed to be connected to an armed, international conflict. At the time this was enough to pursue justice, but the definition was still lacking. 
3. International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda: This tribunal was convened by the UN after the 1994 Rwandan genocide, in which Hutu militias massacared the Tutsis. The conflict was almost entirely internal, meaning previous definitions of crimes against humanity wouldn’t be applicable. Therefore, the tribunal removed the need to be connected to an armed, international conflict. They could now prosecute crimes that happened solely within one country’s borders, as long as they were part of a “systematic or widespread attack against any civilian population on national, political, ethnic, racial or religious grounds.” This definition was also successfully applied in 2002 against Sierra Leone’s president Charles Taylor after the atrocities that took place in their 11 year civil war and in Cambodia against members of the Khmer Rouge who directed various crimes against humanity against their own people.  
4. International Criminal Court: Following in the footsteps of the Sierra Leone and Cambodia tribunals, the ICC was founded in The Hague. Article 7 of the founding charter offers the most detailed definition of crimes against humanity yet created. Since then, 31 cases have appeared before the court. 

Article 7 of the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines crimes against humanity as any of the “following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

1. Murder;
2. Extermination;
3. Enslavement;
4. Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
5. Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
6. Torture;
7. Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
8. Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law; 
9. Enforced disappearance of persons;
10. The crime of apartheid;
11. Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.”

Article 7 also makes it clear that crimes against humanity must contain 3 elements:

1. Physical Element: Murder, imprisonment, enslavement, etc. 
2. Contextual Element: Widespread and systematic 
3. Mental Element: Having knowledge of the physical and contextual elements

Uganda’s New Anti-LGBTQ Bill

In March 2023, Ugandan Parliament unveiled a bill dubbed the “2023 Anti-Homosexuality Bill.” Human rights activists around the world have criticized it as draconian and a clear violation of international law. For example, the bill imposes the death sentence for “aggravated homosexuality,” 10 years in prison for the “offense of homosexuality,” and 5 years in prison or a $25,000 fine for “promotion of homosexuality.” 

When it comes to crimes against humanity, this bill is clearly a violation of number 8. The LGBTQ community is certainly an identifiable group, and this bill is certainly written for the intent to persecute or inspire persecution. Likewise, this bill violates number 5. International law is clear that imprisoning a person for their sexual preferences is a violation of their fundamental liberties. Lastly, it can be argued that number 11 is also being violated, as this bill intentionally causes mental suffering and possibly inspires physical suffering for LGBTQ community. 

And when it comes to the 3 elements listed above, this bill has all of them. The physical element is imprisonment, deprivation of property such as being fined or evicted, and of course persecution. The contextual element is satisfied by the fact that it’s an actual government bill. If it passes, which it likely will, it will become law across the country. And the mental element box can be ticked because it was created, debated, and voted on by the government. No one in the government can pretend they aren’t aware of what is in the bill or what the consequences will be. 

Uganda’s Anti-LGBTQ Sentiment Is New

This isn’t the first time Uganda’s government has drawn the ire of the international community. Beginning in 2009, they have openly courted American evangelicals like Scott Lively to spread anti-LGBTQ propaganda in their country. Based on their demonstrably false statements, the government proposed what has been dubbed the “Kill the Gays” bill in 2009 due to inclusion of the death penalty. Before this was signed into law in 2014, Lively was sued by Ugandan activist organization Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG). SMUG alleged that Lively and many other American activists were violating crimes against humanity for their push to persecute the LGBTQ community. Although the lawsuit was dismissed by an American judge for lack of jurisdiction, he gave a stark warning for such behavior:

“Anyone reading this memorandum should make no mistake. The question before the court is not whether Defendant’s actions in aiding and abetting efforts to demonize, intimidate, and injure LGBTI people in Uganda constitute violations of international law. They do.”

Judge Michael Ponsor, “Sexual Minorities Uganda v. Scott Lively”

Although Uganda’s 2014 anti-LGBTQ law and its creators have not had their day in court, the international community has been very clear about their opposition. The US imposed economic sanctions, the World Bank stopped aid loans, and countries like Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands continue to refuse to offer aid until the 2014 law is changed.  

Such anti-LGBTQ sentiment can be traced to the beginning of British colonization in 1894. The British government imposed harsh punishments for homosexuality in Uganda until they gained independence in 1962. However, the new independent Ugandan government adopted most of these laws afterwards. In this legal climate and with American evangelicals stoking fear and spreading falsehoods, the LGBTQ community is constantly subjected to persecution, violence, and intimidation. In fact, it’ss a widespread notion that not only is homosexuality unnatural but that it’s a product of Westernization that needs to be rooted out and stopped to preserve their African heritage. 

But this couldn’t be further from the truth. Homosexuality has been well-documented across Africa before colonization. For example, King Mwanga II of Buganda, the kingdom that preceded the nation of Uganda, was openly bisexual. Many African languages even contain friendly words for same-sex relations. The Shangaan inkotshane means “male-wife;” In Lesotho motsoalle means “special friend” and was used for female-female relations; in Senegal gor-digen or “men-women” refers to homosexual men; and in Uganda the mudoko dako were effeminate males who were allowed to marry other men. So it seems homosexuality is not a Western import, a common idea in Uganda, but in fact, it’s quite the opposite.

“What is alien to the continent is legalized homophobia, exported to Africa by the imperialists where there had been indifference to and even tolerance of same-sex relations.”

Dr. Sylvia Tamale

Therefore, Uganda’s new anti-LGBTQ bill is not only a crime against humanity but un-African.