The African Union and homosexuality: An opinion on the 2015

Coalition of African Lesbians question1.

By Lenin Tinashe Chisaira2
Introduction
The African Union (AU) Executive Council in June 2015 requested the African Commission on
Human and Peoples Rights (ACHPR) to withdraw the NGO-observer status of sexual minority
rights group, the Coalition of African Lesbians (CAL). The AU Executive Council based its
request on the ground that CAL sought to impose values contrary to African values. Against
this background, this opinion piece seeks to point out the adverse impact of the decision on
the sexual minority segment of the African people and on the general human rights, political
and economic justice of the continents populace. The piece also seeks to provide insight into
so called fundamental African values, identity and good traditions.
Sexual Minority Rights and African States
Sexual minority rights, notably same sex marriages and relationships, have been a
contentious issue in contemporary Africa. States responses have not been uniform and this
makes the AU Executive Councils use of African values against CAL eyebrow-raising.
Progressive states like South Africa, and more recently Mozambique have decriminalised
sexual minority rights. On the other hand, repressive regimes like Uganda have gone to the
extreme end, making sexual minority expressions a capital offence. Zimbabwe is also at the
forefront of the fight against sexual minority rights. These varying responses highlight that socalled African values are usually based on the feelings of individual leaders, usually those
masking ineffective governance.
African values are not easy to outline. The continent has different cultural practices hence it
is hazardous to impose a single view of fundamental African values, identity and good
traditions. States responses to sexual minorities' practices within their own borders make it
a lie that there is a unanimous set of values covering the entire continent.

Adapted from an essay submitted to the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria by the author in
September 2015.
2
LL. B (Hons), University of Zimbabwe; LLM Candidate.

The Decision and its Impact on Other Rights

The decision by the AU Executive Council goes beyond an attack on sexual minority rights. It
is a blatant attack on other basic human rights such as the freedom of association. CAL is an
association whose members are part of the same African populace that the same AU seeks to
serve at continental level. It is clear therefore that the decision fundamentally violates Article
10 (1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights which provides that Every
individual shall have the right to free association provided that he abides by the law.
Furthermore removal of an NGOs observer status can easily become a calculated move to
hinder accountability over the way the ACHPR, and by extension the African Union conducts
their business.
The Case of Zimbabwe
Whilst discussing impacts of the AU Executive Councils decision at a continental level, it is
pertinent that we also focus on specific countries like Zimbabwe, which at the time of writing
is chairing the continental body. The Zimbabwean governments stance on sexual minority
rights is well documented. President Robert Mugabe is infamous for constantly uttering that
gays and lesbians are worse than pigs and dogs. In that regard, Section 78 (3) of the
Constitution of Zimbabwe prohibits men and women from entering into same sex marriages.
Surprisingly while the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] goes on to
criminalise consensual homosexual relations between men, sexual relations between women
in the same code are not criminalised. This therefore belies the apparent confusion in the
Zimbabwean governments efforts to suppress lesbianism among other sexual minority
rights.
In Zimbabwes political context rhetoric against minority sexual rights is more pronounced
during election times. To this extent prominent utterance against gays and lesbians seem
calculated to obscure critical issues like the state of the economy, election rigging and
absence of basic political freedoms and human rights. And indeed they are used to
unnecessarily whip up peoples emotions by calculating regimes, and this is clearly the case
in countries with suspect governance value systems like Zimbabwe and Uganda. In those
countries, even political opposition is vilified and human rights activists are constantly under
attack.

Conclusion
Supra-national governance mechanisms of a continent that does not have a single explicit set
of fundamental values must not interfere with sexual minority rights. That is akin to big
brothering peoples bedrooms and violating their basic human rights to sexual expression
and association. Rather the AU must commit itself and its resources to upholding human
rights, economic justice and comprehensive democratic good traditions and values. Hence
the AU Executive Council ordinarily should not have interfered with the NGO-observer status
of the Coalition of African Lesbians.
[The author is a researcher |environmental lawyer| writer and activist. He is passionate about
writing and campaigning on economic justice, environmental justice, leftist politics and human
rights. Website: www.africafightnow.org. Blog: www.cdetinashe.blogspot.com ]