Uganda’s Sexual Offences Bill sparks debate over rights, culture, and justice

It’s not everyday that lawmakers go back and forth in Parliament over what precisely constitutes a sexual organ and the attendant dynamics.

Yet Parliament’s official record of debates, the Hansard, this week captured an illuminating exchange between Ms Anna Adeke (Soroti District Woman MP) and Jonathan Odur (Erute South). This as the former’s Sexual Offences Bill, 2024, was scrutinised by two House committees, the Legal and that on Gender.

In a deeply religious country often accused of holding traditional values, Ms Adeke’s Bill is certain to succeed in stoking controversy. And it wasted little time in doing so, with the discussion between Ms Adeke and Mr Odur evoking memories of when President Museveni made clear that “the mouth is eating.” Notwithstanding, Ms Adeke strongly believes that her Bill will, if passed in its current form, be of great utility to the country.

She states in the Bill that it is intended "to enact a specific law on sexual offences for the effectual prevention of sexual violence [as well as] enhance punishment of sexual offenders.”

The Bill also intends to, one, “provide for the protection of victims during trial of sexual offences”; two, “provide for extra territorial application of the law”; and, three, “repeal some provisions of the Penal Code Act.”

Sex offender registry
The vast majority of the remedial clauses in the Bill hold out penalties ranging from three years to 15 years for parties found guilty of some of the sexual offences. For instance, any person living with HIV/Aids found guilty of rape will face 10 years in prison, while persons engaging in acts of prostitution will be imprisoned for two years upon conviction.

For clarity, the Bill defines prostitution to mean "the practice of engaging in sexual acts or sexual gratification for monetary or other gain.” It also defines a prostitute as someone who “holds himself or herself out as available for a sexual act or sexual gratification for monetary or other gain,” or as “engages in a sexual act or sexual gratification for monetary or other gain.”

Similarly, persons found to be intoxicating others for purposes of gaining or practicing sexual activities will be liable to seven years in jail. "A person who intentionally administers or causes to be administered a substance to another person, with the intention of inducing, stupefying or overpowering that other person so as to perform a sexual act on that person or to enable another person perform a sexual act on that person, commits an offence and is liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding seven years,” the Bill reads in part.

As a deterrent measure, Ms Adeke wants an offenders' register created so that perpetrators' details can be filed under the watch of the National Identification Registration Authority (Nira).

"A person convicted of an offence under this Act shall have his or her particulars entered in the register,” clause 32 reads, adding: "Where a person is convicted of an offence under this Act, court shall, within 10 days of the judgment, forward particulars and a certified copy of the judgment to the National Identification and Registration Authority.”

Mixed reactions
Mr Odur was not the only member of the House Committee on Legal and Parliamentary Affairs to take exception to the Bill. A provision in the Bill that moves to prohibit prostitution drew the ire of both Mr Fox Odoi (West Budama North East) and Mr Henry Nkwasiibwe Zinkuratire (Ruhaama County).

On their part, the sex workers' fraternity want the legislation to go beyond the commercial benefits of prostitution. "It is not just about growing the economy of Uganda but there is also factoring in the well-being and human rights of the sex workers,” Ms Sanyu Hajarah Batte, the executive director of the Lady Mermaid Recreational Centre, told Monitor.

She added: “There is also a need to look at ways of reducing the spread of HIV/Aids among our people.” Ms Batte also wants the Bill to consider factoring in "the benefits for the sex workers and how to handle the children of sex workers who, in most cases, remain uncared for since their mothers are at times arrested or financially handicapped.”

The administration of the Law Development Centre (LDC), which runs Uganda’s Bar Course, this week made known its intention to have the provision for a sex offenders’ registry reworked. LDC officials reasoned that their concern is informed by the fact that a registry impedes attempts to rehabilitate sexual offenders. “The Bill’s provision for lifetime registration on the sex offenders’ register may lead to unnecessary stigmatisation, potentially hindering rehabilitation efforts for low-risk offenders,” Mr Paul Mukiibi, the head of Department of Law Reporting, Research and Law Reporting, said.

He added: “While the registry aims to protect public safety, its indefinite nature could limit opportunities for reintegration.”

Against the grain?
Elsewhere, Dr Stephen Watiti, a commissioner at the Uganda Aids Commission, reckons that slapping a 10-year-long prison sentence on persons with HIV/Aids who forcefully have carnal knowledge with others is harsh.

Dr Watiti feels this may frustrate efforts to curb the scourge in the country. "The most important thing for me is to ensure people are given information. But, as you know, people with hammer in their hands, everything looks like a nail,” Mr Watiti said, adding: “It will make our efforts a bit tough and in a country where law enforcement is quite tough. So it may be used to convict people on political reasons or to settle other scores.”

Mr Odur holds a divergent opinion on the plan to criminalise some of the acts like suitors whistling and winking. The Bill deems such acts as indecent communication.

“I am not a fan of copy and paste. Some of the things we do here are informed by our customs and traditions. For example, in our setting, how do we court a woman? Are we going to criminalise that?” the Erute South lawmaker said, adding: “That if I wink at a woman, that if I whistle at a woman, which are the things we have used in the villages, or even use some symbols that can communicate, [it is unlawful]. Are we now going to bring that and criminalise that to make life very difficult for things that are socially acceptable?”

Mr Odur’s view is shared by Mr Mukiibi, who stated that “the lack of clear criteria of unwanted advances may lead to false accusations or overly subjective interpretations, potentially impacting the fair treatment of accused individuals.”

View from the pulpit
Religious leader and activist Pastor Martin Sempa vented his spleen on the Bill. “There are many areas we disagree with on this Sexual Offences Bill,” Mr Sempa told Monitor. “I have fought this Bill before. The sponsors of this Bill are feminist groups and it does not capture the aspirations of an African woman.”

Mr Sempa opines that most of the sections of the Bill are crafted in a manner that is skewed towards punishing the male sex. He reasons that criminalising “forms of communication” such as winking and “accidental touches” defeats the cultural processes of courtship. “This targets men and the entire process of courtship because sometimes things start as accidental touches and people bump into each other,” Mr Sempa said.

He added: “Africa is not a society to have its marriages run by judges. Feminists always run to judges and police to run marriage issues. It is terrible to bring police into the bedroom because there are dynamics in the bedroom which cannot be appreciated. For instance, the Bagisu, when they hold cultural practices like Kadodi.”

Mr Sempa instead wants the government to create a standalone ministry to protect marriages in Uganda. "As long as we don’t have a pro-family Cabinet minister of Marriage and Family, they will always be coming up with ways of changing us culturally. It is sad. We will look back and wonder how we were captured by our own Parliament. So we need that ministry. People like me get tired [because] we don’t have the resources to continuously push back,” Mr Sempa opined.