Supreme Court will crush sodomy appeal - lawyer
"The Supreme Court is going to crush them like the government has never seen before... especially when they come up with that nonsense."
These are the words of Windhoek lawyer Uno Katjipuka about government's claims that the difference between sodomy and anal penetration between a man and a woman is that "it cannot be said that a man ‘accidentally’ or ‘unknowingly’ sexually penetrates another man”.
She also warned that government's defence that sexuality is not protected under the constitution may open the door for discrimination on the grounds of other characteristics that are not expressly protected in the constitution. This after several state bodies appealed against the High Court's decision to declare the sodomy law unconstitutional.
"The claim that the homophobes who drafted our constitution deliberately did not include sexual orientation loses sight of the fact that the constitution is intended to be a living document to serve future generations. A court's interpretation of the constitution must serve contemporary society," she said.
"What the homophobic founders and drafters of the constitution intended is not important. What matters is what the constitution says, and it protects the right to equality and the indisputability of one's dignity," Katjipuka explained.
Personal agenda
She believes that the government’s grounds for appeal hints at a personal agenda. "It seems to me that the government is taking a condescending and paternalistic stance when they argue that because of biological, anatomical and social differences between men and women, it is OK to discriminate against homosexual men... this is where the government and their lawyers, in my opinion, show their personal homophobia”.
The parties registered as appellants are the justice minister, the ministry of home affairs, immigration, safety and security, the defence minister, the prosecutor-general and the attorney-general.
The respondent in the case is LGBTQ activist Friedel Dausab, who originally filed the application at the High Court to have the sodomy law declared unconstitutional.
The government's notice of appeal claimed that the High Court placed too much value on public opinion and confused it with the social norm.
The government entities appealed to the Supreme Court, which is the only court with higher authority than the High Court. The applicants also claim that the High Court failed to take into account social norms through public opinion.
The appellants further claimed that the High Court failed to answer all their grounds, as determined by a judgment in 2019. This ruling ordered that a court must respond to all grounds to make it easier for an appellate court to make a decision, even if the court relies on only one claim in its ruling.
Katjipuka urged the government entities' lawyers to keep their oath in mind.
- [email protected]
These are the words of Windhoek lawyer Uno Katjipuka about government's claims that the difference between sodomy and anal penetration between a man and a woman is that "it cannot be said that a man ‘accidentally’ or ‘unknowingly’ sexually penetrates another man”.
She also warned that government's defence that sexuality is not protected under the constitution may open the door for discrimination on the grounds of other characteristics that are not expressly protected in the constitution. This after several state bodies appealed against the High Court's decision to declare the sodomy law unconstitutional.
"The claim that the homophobes who drafted our constitution deliberately did not include sexual orientation loses sight of the fact that the constitution is intended to be a living document to serve future generations. A court's interpretation of the constitution must serve contemporary society," she said.
"What the homophobic founders and drafters of the constitution intended is not important. What matters is what the constitution says, and it protects the right to equality and the indisputability of one's dignity," Katjipuka explained.
Personal agenda
She believes that the government’s grounds for appeal hints at a personal agenda. "It seems to me that the government is taking a condescending and paternalistic stance when they argue that because of biological, anatomical and social differences between men and women, it is OK to discriminate against homosexual men... this is where the government and their lawyers, in my opinion, show their personal homophobia”.
The parties registered as appellants are the justice minister, the ministry of home affairs, immigration, safety and security, the defence minister, the prosecutor-general and the attorney-general.
The respondent in the case is LGBTQ activist Friedel Dausab, who originally filed the application at the High Court to have the sodomy law declared unconstitutional.
The government's notice of appeal claimed that the High Court placed too much value on public opinion and confused it with the social norm.
The government entities appealed to the Supreme Court, which is the only court with higher authority than the High Court. The applicants also claim that the High Court failed to take into account social norms through public opinion.
The appellants further claimed that the High Court failed to answer all their grounds, as determined by a judgment in 2019. This ruling ordered that a court must respond to all grounds to make it easier for an appellate court to make a decision, even if the court relies on only one claim in its ruling.
Katjipuka urged the government entities' lawyers to keep their oath in mind.
- [email protected]
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article