Advert
-->

City Lawyer Kalali Challenges Penal Code Provisions

Court -->
City Lawyer Kalali Challenges Penal Code Provisions
Steven Kalali

In what he has termed a landmark legal petition, Steven Kalali is seeking a declaration that Sections 115(1) and 115(3) of the Penal Code, which address indecent assault and insulting modesty, unfairly provide legal protections for women while excluding men.

A lawyer has petitioned the Constitutional Court challenging the legality of certain provisions of Uganda’s Penal Code Act, which he argues discriminate against the male gender.

In what he has termed a landmark legal petition, Steven Kalali is seeking a declaration that Sections 115(1) and 115(3) of the Penal Code, which address indecent assault and insulting modesty, unfairly provide legal protections for women while excluding men.

Kalali contends that these provisions are inconsistent with Uganda’s Constitution and violate the principle of equality before the law.

He argues that the current legal framework, which creates a distinct offense for "insulting the modesty of a woman or girl," fails to provide similar protection for men who may face the same offenses.

The lawyer highlights that Section 115 of the Penal Code creates a double standard, offering legal safeguards for women, but not men, which violates constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination, as enshrined in Articles 2(2), 20, 21(1), and 21(3) of the Constitution.

Kalali stresses that all individuals should be treated equally before the law, regardless of sex or gender, and the failure to extend these protections to men amounts to unjustified discrimination.

Kalali’s petition also draws attention to Uganda’s international human rights obligations. As a signatory to the African Charter on Human and People's Rights, Uganda is obligated to uphold the principles of equality before the law and non-discrimination.

Kalali argues that the gender-specific provisions of the Penal Code conflict with these obligations and should be declared unconstitutional.

Further complicating the legal landscape, Kalali also challenges the Magistrates' Courts Act, Cap. 16, particularly Sections 42(4), (5), and (6), which he claims undermine the rule of law by involving private prosecution and court participation in investigations.

These provisions, according to Kalali, compromise the impartiality of the judicial process, violating Article 28 of the Constitution, which guarantees a fair hearing and impartial trial.

The petition, which has garnered significant attention, calls for a review and possible annulment of these provisions.

If successful, the challenge could result in a major shift in Uganda’s legal framework, ensuring gender-neutral protections against indecent assault and insults to modesty.

Kalali's legal challenge has sparked debates across social media and within legal circles, with many arguing that the Constitution should guarantee equal protection for all, regardless of gender.

As Uganda continues to navigate its legal and constitutional obligations, this case could set an important precedent in the fight for gender equality and the protection of human rights.

The Constitutional Court’s ruling on this matter will be closely watched, not only within Uganda but also across the African continent, as it could have far-reaching implications for gender-based legal reforms.

Reader's Comments

LATEST STORIES