Ghana goes to the polls on 7 December 2024 to elect a new leader and parliament. Ahead of the general elections, legislation against LGBTQI activities has been one of the most topical issues on the lips of both the citizens and the political parties. The topic is so crucial to the extent that it can be a decider of who wins the elections, considering that Ghana is a highly religious and conservative country with strong cultural and traditional beliefs. Ghana is largely made up of Christians and Muslims with a minority of animists and other religions. All these faiths are against LGBTQI activities and the politicians are not oblivious of this obvious fact. This has forced two of the leading candidates to openly declare their stance on the LGBTQI issue, which has occupied the media airwaves for years following the tabling and subsequent passing of an anti-LGBTQI bill by the country’s parliament.
In January this year, for instance, former President John Dramani Mahama, who is the flagbearer of the main opposition National Democratic Congress, unequivocally expressed his opposition to the acknowledgement and manifestation of LGBTQI activities in the country, citing his religious beliefs as a guiding factor. During a breakfast meeting with the clergy in the Eastern Region of Ghana, as part of his two-day tour, Mr Mahama emphasised that his faith, rooted in the Assemblies of God Church, forbids the concept of same-sex marriages. “I am against LGBTQ. I am a member of the Assemblies of God Church, and my faith is against it. I believe that a woman is a woman and a man is a man, so, for a woman to say, ‘I feel I am a man, so, I want to be transformed into a man,’ nature created us one and one. So, if you ask me, my personal faith is against it,” Mr Mahama declared.
In the same vein, Ghana’s current Vice President, Dr Mahamudu Bawumia, who is the flagbearer of the incumbent New Patriotic Party, recently relied on the teachings of Islam as well as Ghanaian cultural values and norm, to reject all forms of LGBTQI activities. While visiting the Kumasi Central Mosque to worship during the Eid-al-Fitr celebration on Thursday, 11 April 2024, the first-ever Muslim leader of the NPP said: “I will take this opportunity to personally comment on the raging issue of LGBTQI+ in Ghana. First of all, it is important to note that our cultural and societal norms and values as Ghanaians frown on the practice of homosexuality. Furthermore, as a Muslim, my view on this matter aligns with the position of my religious faith. The Holy Qu’ran is replete with verses frowning on LGBTQI+ acts, including same-sex marriages. One such verse is Qu’ran Chapter 7 Verse 81 (Suratul Al-A’raf), where Almighty Allah emphatically forbids LGBTQI+ acts and describes them as acts that transgress beyond the bounds or limits of nature. My faith is very strictly against the practice of homosexuality. No ifs or buts. No shades of grey. Therefore, I cannot support that which my religion, and, indeed, all the major religions in Ghana clearly and unequivocally forbid. All the major religious traditions in Ghana (Christianity and Islam) are opposed to this practice and I stand opposed to it now and I will stand opposed to it as President, Insha Allah.”
Ghana’s Parliament, on 28 February 2024, passed the ‘Human Sexual Rights and Family Values’ bill which criminalises all LGBTQI+ activities and prohibits their promotion, advocacy, and funding. Under the bill, individuals engaged in such activities face a jail term ranging from six months to three years, while promoters and sponsors could be sentenced to three to five years. It’s a private members’ bill championed by MPs across the aisle. Though approved by parliament, the bill can only become law when President Nana Akufo-Addo assents to it.
No sooner had the legislature approved the bill than critics – local and international – started raising human rights concerns which carry economic implications.
For instance, a Ghanaian lawyer, Mr Richard Sky, applied to the country’s Supreme Court, seeking a declaration that the bill be nullified and voided so it can have no effect. He argues that the passage of the bill violates various articles of the 1992 Constitution, including Article 33(5) and provisions relating to fundamental human rights and freedoms; and also raises significant concerns regarding potential infringements of constitutional rights guaranteed to every Ghanaian. In addition, he alleges that the Speaker of Ghana’s Parliament violated constitutional provisions by allowing the bill’s passage, contending that it imposes charges on public funds without proper procedures. In his opinion, the Speaker “contravened Article 108(a)(ii) of the Constitution, in light of Article 296(a)(b) and (c), by admitting and allowing Parliament to proceed upon and pass the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2024, into law as the same imposes a charge upon the Consolidated Fund or other public funds of Ghana.” The applicant also seeks an order to restrain the President from assenting to the bill, citing potential violations of constitutional liberties and rights. He argues that “such action will directly contravene the constitutional safeguards of liberties and rights of Ghanaians” and further prays for “an injunction barring any attempts to enforce the provisions of ‘The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill 2024’, particularly those criminalising same-sex relationships and related advocacy efforts.”
Mr Sky is in good company with other critics such as Human Rights Watch. “The anti-LGBT rights bill is inconsistent with Ghana’s long-standing tradition of peace, tolerance, and hospitality and flies in the face of the country’s international human rights obligations,” said Larissa Kojoué, a Human Rights Watch researcher. “Such a law would not only further erode the rule of law in Ghana, but could also lead to further gratuitous violence against LGBT people and their allies”, she warned.
Also, the country’s Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), criticised certain portions of the bill as problematic. Commissioner Joseph Whittal, in an interview with Joy News, said: “We have raised very pertinent concerns on the constitutionality of some of the positions and clauses of the bill. Some of our concerns are being addressed but the key ones that relate to freedom of expression, the right not to sympathise with any person that professes that type of orientation and some institutions having to undertake some education on the bill when it becomes law, we think it is quite problematic”.
Also, civil society group Centre for Democratic Development, Ghana (CDD-Ghana), in a press statement, said: “Ghana’s democracy is not a simple majoritarian democracy where the majority can impose their will or prejudices on a minority merely because they have numbers on their side. Ours is a constitutional democracy, in which even a majority, no matter how numerous or vociferous, is restricted as to what it can and cannot do in the name of law. Importantly, our constitution protects minorities against oppression at the hands of a majority.” It continued: “We believe that this bill passed by Parliament is a clear instance of a majority or an influential coalition of interests, acting through Parliament, to stigmatise and oppress a social minority.”
Aside from violating Article 108, CDD-Ghana also believes that the bill fails the constitutional test on multiple substantive grounds. “Among other things, the bill infringes on the rights of privacy, freedom of association, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of opinion, freedom of the media, and the right to equality under the law. In fact, the bill prohibits even advocacy intended to change or repeal the bill were it to become law. In other words, if this bill were to become law, no person, LGBTQ or otherwise, could advocate publicly for its repeal. Not even the Constitution of Ghana, the supreme law of the land, enjoys this untouchable status!”
Though the passage of the bill has been welcomed by the Ghana Catholic Bishops’ Conference, its President, Reverend Matthew Kwasi Gyamfi, told Citi FM imprisoning homosexuals does not guarantee reformation. “… Being placed in prison as the punishment that they have chosen is not going to solve the problem, because … if you round up same-sex people – and you know our prisons – they are going to end up in the same room and what is going to prevent them from going through these activities in the prison? And you are not going to put them there forever because they are going to be there for three months to six months. And then they practice this and come out as [better] experts at it than when you sent them there; then you release them back into society. So, what is going to happen?”
On the same day that Ghana’s legislature passed the bill, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk, said in a press statement: “The bill broadens the scope of criminal sanctions against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transexual and queer people – simply for being who they are – and threatens criminal penalties against perceived allies of LGBTQ+ people.”
“I call for the bill not to become law. I urge the Ghanaian Government to take steps to ensure everyone can live free from violence, stigma and discrimination, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Consensual same-sex conduct should never be criminalised”, said Türk.
The UN High Commissioner went on: “The bill is contrary to Ghana’s own Constitution and freely-undertaken regional and international human rights obligations and commitments – including to leave no one behind in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”
He said: “Criminal sanctions for consensual same-sex conduct not only violate key international human rights norms and standards on equality, non-discrimination, privacy and equal protection of the law, among others – there is extensive evidence that they legitimise prejudice, expose people to hate crime, police abuse, harassment, intimidation, blackmail and torture. They also perpetuate discrimination and denial of access to basic services, including in healthcare, education and housing.”
Also, US State Department Spokesperson Mathew Miller posted on X (formerly Twitter): “The Ghanaian parliament’s passage of a bill criminalising members of the LGBTQI+ community imperils the rights of all its people, its international reputation, and its economic development. Ghana’s laudable tradition of tolerance will be undermined if this bill becomes law”.
Still on X, US Ambassador to Ghana, Virginia Palmer tweeted: “I am saddened because some of the smartest, most creative, most decent people I know are LGBT. The bill Parliament passed takes away not only their basic human rights but those of all Ghanaians because it undermines their constitutional rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of the press. It will be bad for public order and public health”. She then warned: “If enacted, it will also hurt Ghana’s international reputation and Ghana’s economy.”
Also, billionaire Richard Branson described the bill as “draconian, hateful, cruel, terrifying and horrific” and asked President Akufo-Addo to veto it, else Ghana could face dire economic consequences. The founder and chief executive, in a letter share on X, rallied the business world and human rights lovers to rise against the bill.
He wrote: “In late February, I watched with deep concern as Ghana’s parliament passed a cruel and terrifying new anti-LGBTQ+ bill, that criminalises people simply for coming out, giving courts the power to impose a prison sentence of up to three years.”
“To be thrown in jail just for being who you are and who you love defies belief”, the British billionaire said, adding: “To make things worse, people who support LGBTQ+ rights could also face jail terms of up to five years under the new legislation”.
He said: “With the backing of Ghana’s two major political parties, the bill is now waiting to be signed by President Nana Akufo-Addo. The President has said he won’t act on the bill until the Supreme Court rules on challenges against it. Today, I join many other human rights advocates in Africa and around the world in calling on the president to veto this draconian and hateful piece of legislation”.
In Mr Branson’s view, “Not only is the bill a clear violation of fundamental human rights, but it also carries the risk of disastrous economic consequences for Ghana (as the finance minister stressed in a memo).”
He warned: “For this wonderful country, which has been emerging from its worst economic crisis in decades and is reliant on international funding, the fallout could be devastating”.
Mr Branson condemned the anti-gay legislation sweeping across Africa. “It’s been alarming to see aggressive LGBTQ+ discrimination sweep across the African continent. Last year, I wrote about Uganda’s horrific Anti-Homosexuality Act, one of the most draconian pieces of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation in the world. The Act that could lead to the persecution of thousands of people; some in Uganda’s LGBTQ+ community have been forced into hiding, others have chosen exile”.
“Some of the ‘offences’ outlined in the Act even carry the death penalty. Earlier this year, Amnesty International published a review of the escalating anti LGBTQ+ sentiment and the resulting weaponisation of legislation across 12 African countries.”
“As Tigere Chagutah, Amnesty International’s Regional Director for East and Southern Africa, put it: ‘We face what can only be described as a deepening crisis of homophobic lawfare'”.
The billionnaire gay rights advocate pointed out: “At the heart of this, we must remember that people do not choose to be gay and that absolutely anyone could be – millions of people all over the world, in every country, are gay. As a parent and grandparent, I want my loved ones to grow up free from discrimination and fear. Supporters of anti-LGBTQ+ measures should ask themselves: What if my child was gay? Would I throw them in prison?”
To him, “Criminalising a person’s identity legitimises discrimination and corrodes dignity. Families, businesses, societies, and countries prosper when people have the freedom to be themselves. Why would we ever deny this?”
“Love is love, straight or gay, and we should always stand up so that the LGBTQ+ community can live and love in peace. The community has made lasting contributions to social, political, and cultural life all throughout history. We should be proud of our gay friends, children, colleagues, and others all around us”.
“I am also proud that Virgin is a co-founder of Open For Business, a coalition of businesses fighting homophobia on a global scale and making the business case for LGBTQ+ inclusion. If you are a business leader – in Ghana, Uganda, and elsewhere – join us and be part of collective action on LGBTQ+ rights. Whoever you are, join us in speaking out against Ghana’s horrific law. Ghana and its wonderful people can do so much better.”
Economic cost
The US Ambassador’s warning on the possible repercussions to Ghana’s economy was driven home demonstrably by the country’s Ministry of Finance in a long statement. Crunching the numbers, the ministry warned that the country stands to lose some $3.8 billion in terms of World Bank financial support if President Nana Akufo-Addo assents to the bill.
According to the ministry, the expected US$300 million financing from the First Ghana Resilient Recovery Development Policy Operation (Budget Support) which is currently pending parliamentary approval, might not be disbursed by the Bank when it is approved by Parliament. Also, it said ongoing negotiations on the Second Ghana Resilient Recovery Development Policy Operation (Budget Support) amounting to US$300 million may be suspended. Further, the ministry said ongoing negotiations for US$250 million to support the Ghana Financial Stability Fund may be suspended. Additionally, it noted that the disbursement of undisbursed amounts totalling US$2.1 billion for ongoing projects will be suspended. Lastly, it said the preparation of pipeline projects and declaration of effectiveness for two projects totalling US$900 million may be suspended. “In total, Ghana is likely to lose US$3.8 billion in World Bank financing over the next five to six years. For 2024, Ghana will lose US$600 million in budget support and US$250 million for the Financial Stability Fund. This will negatively impact Ghana’s foreign exchange reserves and exchange rate stability as these inflows are expected to shore the country’s reserve position”, the ministry said.
Impact on the Implementation of Ghana’s 2024 Budget
The Ministry of Finance noted that the potential loss of these financial resources creates a financing gap in the 2024 budget that must be addressed either through a significant reduction in expenditures or additional domestic revenue mobilisation. Failing this, the government’s ability to achieve the targets in the 2024 budget will be undermined and the IMF-ECF programme will be derailed.
Impact on the IMF Programme
The ministry said while there is no direct conditionality in the IMF-ECF programme relating to the passage of the bill, the principles of the current IMF-ECF programme are built on predictable financing from development partners (Financing Assurances) including the World Bank-funded Ghana Resilience Recovery Development Policy Operations. Hence, the non-disbursement of the budget support from the World Bank will derail the IMF programme. This will, in turn, trigger a market reaction which will affect the stability of the exchange rate.
Impact on Debt Restructuring Programme
The ministry indicated that negotiations with the Official Creditor Committee (OCC) and Eurobond holders under Ghana’s debt restructuring programme is predicated on the success of the IMF programme. Hence, a derailed IMF programme will have dire consequences on the debt restructuring exercise and Ghana’s long-term debt sustainability.
Possible adverse reaction from Germany and the wider European Community
The ministry noted that in several discussions with officials from the German Government, its officials have been informed that the German government is against the passage of the bill. “Given Germany’s relative strong influence in the European Union and the Official Creditor Committee, there is the need to manage the relationship to forestall a strong negative reaction”, it warned.
It, thus, made the following recommendations: “a. A structured engagement with local conservative forces such as religious bodies and faith-based organisations to communicate the economic implications of the passage of the “Anti-LGBTQ” bill and to build a stronger coalition and a framework for supporting key development initiatives that are likely to be affected; b. an effective engagement with conservative countries, including the Arab countries and China. This could help trigger resources to fill in the potential financing gaps to be created; and c. H.E. the President may have to defer assenting to the bill until the court rules on the legal issues tabled by key national stakeholders (CSOs and CHRAJ)”.
The ministry pointed out that “the passage of the new bill calls for fortifying local financial systems, strengthening African financial institutions as well as our development journey in partnership with other countries. In line with the ‘Ghana Beyond Aid Agenda’, Ghana can navigate the complexities of international relations and emerge with a robust, resilient economy with Ghanaian ownership of the commanding heights of the economy”.
Government MP paints gloomy situation
Painting a gloomier picture of the financial and economic repercussions that await Ghana should the president assent to the bill, a government MP, Kwaku Kwarteng, wrote the following on 5 March 2024: “Folks, there is no doubt that this is a difficult matter for us as a ruling party and as a country. The truth is, neither Nigeria nor Uganda was in an IMF programme at the time they passed their anti-LGBT law. Ghana’s case is different; completely different. As a country, we have traditionally survived on borrowed money. Because we earn far less foreign exchange than the value of our imports, we have, against all thoughtfulness, been borrowing foreign exchange to meet our everyday needs as a way of life. It has been so since independence and our indebtedness has been getting worse. As a government, we have not done much to deal with this historical weakness of our economy. Today, our creditors would no longer lend to us because we are unable to service the debt we owe them. In fact, we are in discussions with them to give them a haircut on the money we owe them. That is to say: we would repay only a part of what we owe them”.
Mr Kwarteng continued: “With private investors unwilling to lend to us, we were faced with the possibility of not having enough foreign exchange to import essentials like fuel, medicine, etc. The fear of queues at our fuelling stations and other fears were getting real! This is what forced our government to make a U-turn and seek an IMF bail-out. Without an IMF bail-out, it was unlikely that our democracy would be on its legs up to Dec 2024. In Ghana today, it is the foreign money we are getting from the World Bank and IMF that is financing our foreign exchange deficit. Even that, our cedi is falling badly because traditional sources of foreign exchange into our economy have all dried up. We are in a crisis! No private creditor wants to lend us foreign exchange. If the World Bank and the IMF pull out, we are finished! We cannot compare ourselves to Uganda and Nigeria. For those of us who think not passing the anti-LGBT bill into law is politically problematic, we need to weigh that against the political consequences of queues appearing at our fuelling stations, possible rationing of electricity, possible shortage of critical medicine, etc. We are between a rock and a hard place”.
World Bank and USA punish Uganda for passing anti-LGBTQI law
Ghana’s Ministry of Finance may have issued the warning being cognisant of how the World Bank punished Uganda in the past for passing similar laws.
In August 2023, the World Bank announced it would halt new loans to Uganda over the country’s controversial anti-LGBTQ law. The Bretton Woods institution said it would pause project financing pending a review of measures it introduced to protect sexual and gender minorities from discrimination and exclusion in its projects.
“Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act fundamentally contradicts the World Bank Group’s values,” the lender said in a statement, adding: “We believe our vision to eradicate poverty on a livable planet can only succeed if it includes everyone irrespective of race, gender, or sexuality. This law undermines those efforts. Inclusion and non-discrimination sit at the heart of our work around the world.”
The World Bank also said it would increase third-party monitoring and grievance redress mechanisms “allowing us to take corrective action as necessary”.
World Bank President Ajay Banga, who took office in June, faced pressure from 170 civic groups to respond to the legislation with “specific, concrete and timely actions”, including suspending future lending.
“The World Bank Group has a longstanding and productive relationship with Uganda; and we remain committed to helping all Ugandans – without exception – escape poverty, access vital services, and improve their lives,” the lender said.
The New York Times reported in August 2023 that Uganda’s central bank held its key interest rate for a fifth time in a row after the World Bank’s decision caused the local currency to weaken.
In June of that same year, the US imposed travel restrictions on Ugandan officials in response to the legislation, which was signed by the Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni.
Ghana’s President allays fears of the West
Amidst the heated debate, President Nana Akufo-Addo said he was aware that the passage of the bill, “has raised considerable anxieties in certain quarters of the diplomatic community and amongst some friends of Ghana that she may be turning her back on her, hitherto, enviable, longstanding record on human rights observance and attachment to the rule of law”.
“I want to assure you that no such back-sliding will be contemplated or occasioned”, Mr Akufo-Addo said at a New Year’s greeting event with members of the diplomatic corps at Peduase. The president indicated that he was yet to be given a copy of the bill, adding that he would act on it after the Supreme Court hears a case filed about the constitutionality of the approved bill.
“I think it will serve little purpose to go, at this stage, into the details of the origin of this proposed law, which is yet to reach my desk”, Mr Akufo-Addo said. “But, suffice it to say, that I have learned that, today, a challenge has been mounted at the Supreme Court by a concerned citizen to the constitutionality of the proposed legislation”. “In the circumstances, it would be, as well, for all of us to hold our hands, and await the decision of the Court before any action is taken. The operation of the institutions of the Ghanaian state will determine the future trajectory of the rule of law and human rights compliance in our country”.
African countries with anti-LGBTQI+ laws
The Human Dignity Trust has identified significant legal and social challenges faced by LGBTQI+ individuals worldwide, with, at least, 67 countries having laws that criminalise same-sex sexual activity, leading to imprisonment or even the death penalty in some cases. Additionally, nine countries have laws that target forms of gender expression, particularly affecting transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals. Sixty-five jurisdictions criminalise private, consensual same-sex sexual activity, with almost half of them being Commonwealth countries. Forty-one countries specifically criminalise sexual activity between women. Twelve countries impose the death penalty for same-sex sexual activity, with six of them actively implementing it. Fourteen countries criminalise gender identity and/or expression, using laws against cross-dressing, impersonation, and disguise. Also, transgender individuals face discrimination and violence in many more countries due to various laws. Additionally, 15 countries maintain unequal ages of consent, imposing stricter regulations for same-sex couples compared to heterosexual couples, or for anal sex compared to vaginal sex.
In Africa, several countries, in addition to Uganda – where same-sex sexual activity has been criminalised with penalties including death – have also passed anti-LGBT laws. They include Zambia, Zimbabwe, Tunisia, Tanzania, The Gambia, Togo, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Mauritania, Morocco, Namibia, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Guinea, Kenya, Eritrea, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Chad, Comoros, Egypt, Algeria, Burundi, and Cameroon. Each of these countries has varying degrees of criminalisation against same-sex sexual activity, with penalties ranging from imprisonment to death.
Cultural Cost
In November 2023, Ghanaian Cardinal Peter Turkson got tackled by his country for sounding, in the view of his critics, ‘liberal’ on the taboo LGBTQIA+ topic when he spoke to the BBC’s HARDtalk programme.
He had told the international media house that homosexuality should not be a criminal offence and people should be helped to understand the issue better – a view completely at odds with his country’s lawmakers, some of whom are sponsoring a private member’s bill to have all sexuality on the LGBTQIA+ spectrum explicitly circumscribed and criminalised.
Turkson, the first-ever Ghanaian cardinal appointed in 2003 by Pope John Paul II, is now chancellor of the Pontifical Academies of Sciences and is seen as likely to become the first-ever black Pope in the history of the Catholic Church.
In his HARDtalk interview, Cardinal Turkson said: “LGBT people may not be criminalised because they’ve committed no crime”, adding: “It’s time to begin education, to help people understand what this reality, this phenomenon is”.
“We need a lot of education to get people to… make a distinction between what is [a] crime and what is not [a] crime”, explained Cardinal Turkson, who referred to the fact that in one of Ghana’s languages, Akan, there is an expression known as ‘Kojo Besia’, which refers to “men who act like women and women who act like men”.
To him, ‘Kojo Besia’ was indicative that homosexuality was not an imposition from the outside. “If culturally we had expressions [like that] … it just means that it’s not completely alien to the Ghanaian society.”
Nevertheless, Cardinal Turkson said he thought that what had led to the current efforts to pass strict anti-gay measures in several African countries were “attempts to link some foreign donations and grants to certain positions… in the name of freedom, in the name of respect for rights”.
“Neither should this position also become… something to be imposed on cultures which are not yet ready to accept stuff like that”, he cautioned.
The big cultural debate
Is Cardinal Turkson right in saying merely having local expressions that refer to effeminate males and masculine women (Kojo Besia) is proof enough that homosexuality is not alien to African culture? That is an issue that has been widely debated in cultural and academic circles.
Just like in Ghana, anti-LGBTQIA+ sentiments hold sway in many African countries, primarily due to the conservative cultural and religious values of the continent and some African leaders, past and present, have been at the forefront of the continent’s anti-gay movement.
“Gays are worse than pigs and dogs,” Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe is on record to have said while alive. He was in good company with Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni, who also, at a point in time, described the anti-LGBTQIA+ community as “disgusting” people; and Mr Yahyah Jammeh of The Gambia, while president, also said gays were “mosquitoes” and “vermin”.
They are homophobes per liberal judgement, perhaps, but bastions of African values – puritans in the eyes of the conservative African. They hold the view that homosexuality is un-African.
A man fellating another couldn’t be more grotesque – culturally, morally, and, in their view, naturally. It is a taboo; insufferably sepulchral.
Even worse, to the conservatives, is the idea of a man penetrating a fellow man’s anus with his phallus. Abominably un-African, they would condemn.
Such ‘abnormal debauchery’ and ‘unnatural sexual craving’ could only be a post-colonial relic. It must be a Whiteman’s contagion.
Africa’s palpable anti-LGBTQIA+ environment is reinforced by stern anti-gay laws. The LGBTQIA+ community in Africa are target of instant (in)justice – depending on where you stand. They are, either stoned to death or burnt alive by anti-LGBT+ vigilantes with beastly abandon. In a society struggling to find a dialectical balance between its ancient values and the modern-day Afro-acquiesced invasion of Western culture, homosexuality would be a hard sell.
It is simply irreconcilable with what is African, the conservatives and moralists will insist. Anything “un-African” must be intolerable to Africans, and must be purged by ‘any means necessary’ – even by lynching.
But Africa’s LGBTQIA+ community is fighting back. “Who defines what is un-African?” they ask. They are falling on a mountain of ‘alleged’ ancient traditional practices documented by mostly white-Western anthropologists, to counter what, in their view, is a misinformed perception about homosexuality being an imported contagion.
A report titled ‘Expanded Criminalisation of Homosexuality in Uganda: A Flawed Narrative/Empirical Evidence and Strategic Alternatives from an African Perspective’, prepared by Uganda’s sexual minorities, claims anthropologists Stephen Murray and Will Roscoe (An American gay activist who helped found the Lambda Alliance at the University of Montana, the state’s first LGBT organisation in 1975), have, in their view, clearly shown that homosexuality has been a “consistent and logical feature of African societies and belief systems,” throughout the continent’s history.
Other anthropologists like Thabo Msibi of the University of Kwazulu-Natal, Marc Epprecht, E. Evans-Pritchard and Deborah P. Amory, have reached similar conclusions.
To begin with, it is worth noting that the first ‘alleged’ documentation of homosexuality (as understood in the modern-day sense) has been traced to Egypt (Africa) in 2400 BCE. Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum, two male “overseers and manicurists of the Palace of the King”, according to the dossier, whether contrived, misinterpreted or genuine, were depicted in a nose-kissing position in Egyptian art. However, not all anthropologists agree the two were homosexuals. Some argue they could have been twin brothers.
Further, among the alleged documented evidence is a 2000-year-old “explicit” San Bushman painting, which depicts men having sex with each other through the anus. To the apologists who insist homosexuality has never, historically and culturally, been alien to Africa, such archaeological evidence cannot be wished away.
Certainly, they would push forth: the Bushman of old would not have found it necessary to document such a practice through paintings if nothing of the sort was happening at the time. Or would they? But could both the Egyptian and the Bushman artworks be hoaxes? After all, it is not at all uncommon in the world of archaeology to fake such evidence. History is replete with such examples.
Furthermore, the document adduces other cultural and spiritual evidence to prove the African-ness of homosexuality. It says the Nzinga – a warrior woman in the Ndongo Kingdom of the Mbundu – who ruled as ‘‘King” rather than “Queen”, was documented by a Dutch military attaché in the late 1640s, dressed as a man surrounded in her harem by young men dressed as women she called “wives”.
Could that be a clear manifestation of early transgenderism and transvestitism in Africa? Or are purely traditional African rituals such as that – if, indeed, anything of the sort ever happened – being stretched beyond their limits to clothe what, perhaps, could be a modern-day construct with ex-post facto historical and cultural circumstance to rationalise what may not even have been? Or is the evidence too substantial to ignore?
E. Evans-Pritchard is also said to have recorded that the Azande or Zande of Northern Congo, practised an institutionalised traditional custom, which allowed older warriors to marry younger men who were between 12 and 20 years old. They served them as “wives”. The Warriors, according to the anthropologists, paid a “bride price” to the family of the young men they married, just as happens in heterosexual marriage contracts within the same traditional setting.
The “boy-wives” served their “warrior husbands” sexually and domestically. Once married, the warrior-husband referred to his boy-wife’s parents as “gbiore” (father-in-law) and “negbiore” (mother-in-law).
A precursor of gay marriage in Africa? Or are the continent’s sexual minorities clutching at straw to justify their sexual ‘abnormality’? Or did this alleged practice – if proven – wield spiritual and mystical essence rather than a sexual one? And should mystical rituals and cultural practices bearing semblances of homosexuality necessarily be deemed homosexual in nature in both the historical and modern-day contexts of the construct?
Eighteenth-century anthropologist, Father J-B. Labat is thought to have documented the Ganga-Ya-Chibanda, the presiding priest of the Giagues – a group within the Congo Kingdom, as routinely cross-dressing and being referred to as “grandmother”. Is this another anthropological evidence of primordial transvestitism in Africa?
And there are a plethora of them. The “Chibadi”, found in Southern Africa, for instance, were thought to have practised transvestitism. They were documented by a Jesuit in 1606 to have expressed aversion to, and embarrassment at, being called men.
Also, effeminate transvestites in 17th century Angola were documented by Portuguese priests Gaspar Azevereduc and Antonius Sequerius, to have been married by men. Such marriages were purportedly “honoured and even prized”.
Similarly, men who dressed and behaved like women in northwest Kenya and Uganda’s Iteso society had sexual relations with other men. The document also claims same-sex practices were also recorded among the Banyoro and Langi while in pre-colonial Benin, homosexuality, was apparently seen as a natural phase for growing boys.
The Nandi and Kisii of Kenya; and parts of Eastern Africa, are also recorded to have practised female-to-female marriages while among the Cape Bantus, lesbianism was ascribed to women who were in the process of becoming chief diviners known as ‘isanuses’.
Generally, in Southern Africa, many female diviners were thought to have been either homosexual or asexual because the divine healer is thought to be closer to women and, by extension, had spiritual proximity to nature’s fundamental source of sustenance.
Also, the rain queen of the Lobedu Kingdom in South Africa, Modjadji, is said to have taken up to 15 young wives as she saw fit. Primordial lesbianism in African history, it may seem.
Anthropologists also claim gay sex amongst Bantu-speaking Pouhain farmers (Bene, Bulu, Fang, Jaunde, Mokuk, Mwele, Ntum and Pangwe), in present-day Gabon and Cameroon, was seen as mystical medicine for transmitting wealth. It was known as “bian nkû ma”. Similarly, among the Nilotico Lango of Uganda, men who assumed “alternative gender status”, known traditionally as “mukodo”, could marry other men and be treated as women.
Other Ugandan tribes such as the Bahima, Banyoro and Buganda, have also been documented to practise same-sex relationships. Buganda monarch King Mwanga II, who was known as the Kabaka, is documented by anthropologists to have had sex with his male subjects. Mwanga, apparently fought Christian missionaries who attempted to get him to stop sodomising his male subjects.
He is said to have even executed Christians who dared question his sexuality. Could same-sex activities or semblances of it have been mere channels for reaching out to the divine realm? Or were they meant for pleasure, for their mere sake? Could they have been part of necessary spiritual rituals that may have inured to the benefit of communal dwelling at the time, if these documented claims, indeed, were real and true events? Or did the warriors, priests, and priestesses at the time abuse their socio-cultural standing and privileges to pursue a deviant sexual desire using spiritism and mysticism as cover-ups for their debauchery?
The Igbo of Nigeria, Nuer of Sudan and the Kuria of Tanzania also had homosexual practices in their cultures per the document.
Murray and Roscoe documented in their book ‘Boy-Wives and Female-Husbands’ that the Bafia people in Cameroon saw homosexuality among young men as a normal resort to avoiding impregnating young girls during puberty. They found that boys had sex with boys as a precautionary measure for fear of impregnating girls before full maturity.
Sexual affection between girls was also common in Lesotho.
LGBT+ groups in Africa and the world are relying on these alleged anthropological facts to fight the strong anti-gay culture in Africa. To them, the heap of evidence eliminates the perception that Westerners influenced Africa’s gay culture.
As far as they are concerned, homosexuality is intricately interwoven into many African traditions and customs and, therefore, cannot be labelled as un-African. It predates the coming of the Whiteman, as far as they are concerned, so, logically, in their view, the West cannot be deemed to have influenced a culture that pervaded before its forays into the continent. And besides, the West did not choose Africa’s traditions for her.
But the big question is: whether we could apply, retrospectively, the modern-day concept and construct of homosexuality to what pertained in these African societies in ancient times, if, indeed, these practices occurred as documented.
Anthropologist Marc Epprecht, in his book ‘Heterosexual Africa?’ cites evidence to suggest that sexuality, in terms of how we think about it today as being an identity, did not exist in pre-colonial classifications.
He says: “Homosexuality didn’t function as the antithesis to heterosexuality; rather sexuality was part of an innate spectrum. Because of this, soldiers bedding and even living with male companions were simply considered part of a natural sexual occurrence in certain areas, notably in Southern Africa.”
Will it, therefore, be fair to argue, based on the alleged bunch of anthropological evidence that homosexuality, in all its forms, is not un-African? If so, not necessarily saying it is, then why is it that the entire continent has such avid aversion to it? Should it not rather be easier for a continent with such a homosexual history and culture to accept the practice easily than fight it? Or did the present generation of Africans lose touch with the continent’s homosexual history millennia or centuries ago? Or is the bundle of evidence trumped up? Are Africa’s sexual minorities clutching at straw to justify deviant sexual behaviour? Or is Africa simply running away from its homosexual past?
Objective sexual normality vs. subjective abnormality
I detest the idea of one man fellating another. I could tolerate two women fondling each other’s nether parts or bosoms. The man in me wouldn’t find that nauseating in the least. But stretching such fantasy beyond fantasy gives me a bit of a headache. I have no problem with two consenting adults of the same sex choosing to derive sexual pleasure from each other through whatever means. After all, they may – obversely – consider those of us who say we are “straight” as “abnormal”. One’s sexual orientation, therefore, is either “normal” or “abnormal” depending on where you stand. So, despite my disgust for gay sex, I can’t say I’m any more normal than a gay person. Nor can I say a gay person is any more abnormal than me. So, is there normal or abnormal sexual orientation at the end of the day? Is it what society defines it to be? And if so, must it be? Or is it what makes people who consider themselves “normal” – whatever that is – feel comfortable about? Or is it what makes anybody at all – whether normal or abnormal – get the “normal” tinge in their bone? Will heterosexual intercourse be seen as normal were human societies largely homosexual? And could humankind have perpetuated itself through homosexuality? Or must the end purpose, if any, of both, justify their normality or otherwise? Or better still, do, and must, social behaviours in and of themselves, exude normality or otherwise, independent of the phalanx of values that swirl around and shape them; in whatever society they are enmeshed? Or can two opposing aspects of the same thing be right at the same time, within the same society, irrespective of what social values pervade or swing in favour of one rather than the other? Can what is considered “right” in the sight of the majority in any society be wrong? And can what is “wrong” in the same society be right? Heterosexuals see their sexual orientation or preference as normal. I have heard some homosexuals argue that they were born that way, thus, seeming to ascribe normality to their orientation. The world is prominently heterosexual. Homosexuals are considered a minority – or are they? Perhaps, there are more homosexuals in the world than we suspect. Maybe they are still in the closet because they fear what society will say about them once they come out. Maybe they are faking heterosexuality when, in fact, they are homosexuals. Or maybe, the spectrum is more fluid than we think. It is an undeniable fact that heterosexuality, besides its pleasure-giving purpose, also has a procreative function. Homosexuality, on the other hand, naturally, serves no procreative purpose. Procreation is important for human perpetuity. Save through reproductive technology, homosexuals can’t satisfy that purpose. But even with that, homosexuals must, grudgingly, I imagine, bend over to borrow a limb from heterosexuals. A lesbian couple can’t conceive without a sperm donor. Nor can transvestites or shemales or gay couples. Is it then fair to say the tenser one must stretch technology for assistance in replicating a process that effortlessly, and “naturally” happens in nature – as in the case of procreation through heterosexual copulation by both humans and animals – the more abnormally inclined that process is? Is homosexuality, by this argument, therefore, abnormal? Or are homosexuals a perfectly “normal” minority group in an imperfectly “abnormal” society of heterosexuals? Or is humankind experiencing the world upside down? Or has humankind normalised abnormality and simultaneously abnormalised normality? Or did heterosexual orientation gain prevalence over homosexuality through a Darwinian evolutionary process which humankind is yet to come to terms with? And if so, must the fittest survivor then be seen as the normal candidate? Or, perhaps, have we humans got it all wrong by pigeon-holing social behaviour as either right or wrong, when, in reality, both shades could comfortably exist side-by-side in a smudgy continuum without all the socio-religious fuss? Heterosexuals could be the matter of the sexual universe or multiverse – if it exists as predicted by M Theory – while homosexuals could be the Universe’s anti-matter. Both have their separate roles to play while complementing each other at the same time to ensure some unknown balance. Heterosexuals may exist to perpetuate humankind on earth. That could be their sole purpose. Homosexuals could just be one of Nature’s numerous ways of controlling heterosexuals’ progeny. Imagine if all humans desired progenies. Perhaps, the earth can’t bear that burden. Similarly, I can’t imagine the world being full of homosexuals. Humankind would have gone extinct before it even existed.
