Uganda Constitutional Court Extends Indecent Assault Protections to Men and Restricts Magistrates

In a landmark ruling delivered in Kampala, Uganda’s Constitutional Court has extended legal protections against indecent assault and acts insulting modesty to men. A panel of five justices, led by Justice Cheborion Barishaki, ruled that previous provisions under the Penal Code Act protecting exclusively women and girls were discriminatory and inconsistent with the Constitution.

The unanimous judgment followed consolidated petitions filed by city lawyer Steven Kalali, Pader District chief magistrate Martins Kirya, and lawyer Michael Aboneka against the Attorney General. The legal challenge targeted sections of the Penal Code Act and the Magistrates Courts Act, following high-profile legal summonses involving Uganda Law Society president Isaac Ssemakadde.

The petitioners argued that restricting indecent assault protections to women violated Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality and equal protection before the law. The Attorney General defended the gender-specific provisions as affirmative action protecting vulnerable groups. However, the court rejected this argument, holding that protecting women should not create a new form of discrimination against men.

Consequently, the court ordered that the words “any woman or girl” in Section 115 of the Penal Code Act be replaced with “any person,” making protections gender-neutral. Parliament has been given 12 months to formally amend the legislation and provide clearer definitions for prohibited conduct.

In the same judgment, the court addressed structural flaws in the Magistrates Courts Act. It declared unconstitutional the provisions allowing magistrates to participate in preliminary investigations, formulate charges, and then preside over the trial of the same case. The justices emphasized that combining the roles of investigator, prosecutor, and adjudicator undermines judicial impartiality and the right to a fair hearing under Article 28.

While preserving the right of private citizens to bring forth criminal complaints, the court ruled that magistrates involved in preliminary screening are barred from presiding over the trial. Furthermore, formal charges must now be prepared by the complainant, their advocate, or referred to the Directorate of Public Prosecutions.

Legal experts note that the ruling could have immediate ripple effects on ongoing legal matters, including pending cases and previous arrest warrants tied to the invalidated provisions. For more details, read the full report on The Observer.