Connect with us

Africa

Namibia Supreme Court grants partial victory to gay couple seeking permanent residency

Men’s attorney says many hurdles remain

Published

on

(Bigstock photo)

A married same-sex couple who is seeking permanent residency in Namibia received a partial victory from the country’s Supreme Court last week

The Supreme Court on March 7 presided over a permanent residency case involving Guillermo Delgado and the Home Affairs Ministry.

Delgado, a gay man from Mexico who married Namibian national Phillip Lühl eight years ago in South Africa, approached the Supreme Court last year after Namibia’s immigration officials ruled that their South African marriage did not qualify Delgado for residency in Namibia since the country does not recognize same-sex marriages.

The Home Affairs Ministry also did not consider the fact that Delgado had lived in the country for more than 10 years.

Although the Supreme Court ruled the government had discriminated against their residency application because one of the spouses is foreign-born and ordered the Home Affairs Ministry to review Delgado’s request for residency, his attorney Uno Katjipuka-Sibolile said it was just a lost cause that would eventually bring them back to the Supreme Court.

“Essentially by saying go back to Home Affairs you have to start afresh and we have outlined to the court how Home Affairs has been hostile towards Guillermo, Phillip and the entire family so going back to Home Affairs for what? We know they are going to reject the application except now they are going to pretend to have thought about it a little bit longer then you would have to institute a review application or something and eventually come to the Supreme Court it’s just a waste of time, a waste of money and a waste of energy to be quite frank.

We will just have to study the judgment but this is not what we wanted. The good part is that they recognized that Home Affairs really mistreated Guillermo and ordered punitive cost order like you would have heard they said cost on an attorney client scale so you appreciate that Home Affairs did something wrong but you are sending the person back to Home Affairs it makes no sense to me,” said Uno.

Delgado said he and Lühl they were going to do as the Supreme Court recommended, but nevertheless described it was a daunting task since he was going back to the same process that denied him the residency,

“I feel a little bit disappointed, the application had already been made. I made an application and they rejected it so they (the Supreme Court) are basically telling me I should apply again so it’s unclear to me why I should apply again, I suppose so that they can reject it again and then we are back to square one but there should be some explanation for the judgement,” said Delgado. “So, for now I will just reapply for my domicile and see how it goes.”

Namibia Women’s Diverse Association, a non-profit organization that works with LGBTQ Namibians, said although the Supreme Court judgment was non-fluid per se, it was a step towards ending discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

“As we celebrate, we are cognizant that the journey to full recognition equality and equity shall be a struggle we are all prepared to advocate for, with no compromise of anyone’s rights,” said the Namibia Women’s Diverse Association in a statement.

A Namibian woman and her German partner, Elisabeth Frank, in 2001 sued to have their relationship recognized so that Frank could reside in Namibia.

The Immigration Board granted the residence permit, and the government appealed to the Supreme Court. The court ruled Frank should receive a permanent residence permit, which she received a year later, but it did not rule in favor of same-sex relationships.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is not banned in Namibia, and households headed by same-sex couples are not eligible for the same legal protections available to opposite-sex couples.

Section 299 of the Criminal Procedure Act of 2004 includes references to sodomy or attempted sodomy charges.

Schedule 1 groups sodomy together with a list of other crimes for which the police are authorized to make an arrest without a warrant or to use of deadly force in the course of that arrest. Public displays of affection between two men can be considered “immoral” behavior, which is punishable under the Combating of Immoral Practices Act of 1980.

Daniel Itai is the Washington Blade’s Africa Correspondent.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Ghana

Ghanaian lawmakers approve anti-LGBTQ bill

Measure that would criminalize allyship awaits president’s signature

Published

on

Ghanaian flag (Public domain photo from Pixabay)

Ghanaian lawmakers on Friday approved a bill that would, among other things, criminalize LGBTQ allyship.

Reuters reported MPs approved the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2025, in a voice vote after parliament’s Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee backed it.

MPs in 2024 approved a similar bill, but it faced legal challenges and then-President Nana Akufo-Addo didn’t sign it. Lawmakers last year reintroduced the measure after President John Dramani Mahama took office.

The bill awaits his signature.

Rightify Ghana, a Ghanaian LGBTQ advocacy group, in a series of social media posts notes MPs passed the bill days before the 4th African Inter-Parliamentary Conference on Family Values and Sovereignty will take place in Accra, the country’s capital.

Continue Reading

Kenya

Kenyan High Court issues landmark transgender rights ruling

Government ordered to allow trans people to amend ID documents

Published

on

(Image by Bigstock)

Kenya’s High Court has ruled the country’s government cannot refuse requests to amend gender markers on birth certificates and other ID documents.

Audrey Mbugua, a prominent transgender activist, and two other people in 2020 sued Attorney General Dorcas Oduor, the Registrar of Births and Deaths, the National Registration Bureau, and Immigration Services Director General Evelyn Cheluget after they did not receive amended birth certificates.

The Washington Blade previously reported the three plaintiffs argued documents that do not correspond with their gender identity “has denied them opportunities and rights.” Oduor, for her part, in response to the plaintiffs’ claims argued “a person’s gender is based on fact — not feelings — and the plaintiffs at birth were registered and named based on their gender status.”

High Court Justice Bahati Mwamuye ruled on May 20.

“The silence and delay cannot defeat rights,” ruled the court, according to the Daily Nation, a Kenyan newspaper. “Constitutional rights cannot be delayed over administrative convenience.”

The court in 2014 ordered the Kenya National Examinations Council to change Mbugua’s name on her academic diplomas and to remove the male gender marker from them.

Kenya’s intersex rights law took effect in 2022. The government in February 2025 announced intersex people can receive birth certificates with an “I” gender marker.

The Daily Nation notes Mwamuye ordered the Registrar of Deaths and Births and other government agencies to “begin receiving and considering applications for gender-marker changes within” 60 days.

“Access to legal identity documentation is not just a human rights issue; it is a foundational pillar of socio-economic inclusion,” said the Initiative for Equality and Non-Discrimination, a Kenyan advocacy group, in response to the ruling. Without accurate IDs or passports, individuals face severe barriers to employment, financial systems, global business travel, and participation in governance and democratic processes.”

“This ruling marks a critical step forward in reducing administrative discrimination and fostering an inclusive environment where every Kenyan citizen’s legal identity aligns with their dignity,” added INEND.

Outright International, a New York-based global LGBTQ and intersex advocacy group, in a statement described Mwamuye’s ruling as “a meaningful shift towards aligning Kenya’s legal framework with constitutional guarantees of equality, privacy, and human dignity. Outright International also applauded Mbugua and other activists who fought for this change.

“Today, we celebrate a milestone — one achieved through resilience, solidarity, and an unwavering belief in justice,” said the group. “Outright International stands with transgender and intersex Kenyans in honoring this victory and reaffirming our commitment to advancing rights, recognition, and equality for all.” 

Continue Reading

Ghana

Intersex lives, constitutional freedom, and the dangerous future of Ghana’s Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill

Lawmakers continue to consider draconian measure

Published

on

(Bigstock photo)

There is a dangerous silence surrounding intersex lives in Ghana — a silence shaped by fear, misinformation, cultural misunderstanding, and institutional neglect. Today, amid discussions around the possible passage of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2025, that silence risks becoming law, reinforcing exclusion and deepening the marginalization of already invisible lives. 

Much of the national debate surrounding the bill has focused on LGBTQ+ identities. Yet buried within it are implications for intersex persons that many Ghanaians do not fully understand because intersex realities remain largely invisible. 

Intersex persons are born with natural variations in chromosomes, hormones, reproductive anatomy, and/or genital characteristics that do not fit typical definitions of male or female bodies. Intersex is not a sexual orientation or gender identity. It is a biological reality. Ghana’s Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) has clearly acknowledged this distinction. 

Despite this distinction, the bill mistakenly collapses intersex realities into a legal framework linked to LGBTQ+ criminalization. 

Although the bill contains only limited references to intersex persons, under certain medical exceptions, these references do not amount to recognition or protection. Instead, they frame intersex bodies as abnormalities requiring regulation, correction, and institutional management. This approach is inconsistent not only with Ghana’s constitutional guarantees of dignity, equality, privacy, and liberty, but also with emerging African and international human rights standards. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Resolution on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Intersex Persons in Africa – ACHPR/Res.552 (LXXIV) 2023 affirms protections relating to bodily integrity, dignity, freedom from discrimination, and against harmful medical practices. Additionally, the United Nations has repeatedly condemned medically unnecessary and non-consensual interventions on intersex children. Rather than affirming the humanity and autonomy of intersex persons, the bill risks legitimizing systems of surveillance, coercion, violence, and institutional erasure. 

This is not protection.

It is managed erasure.

A child born intersex in Ghana already enters a society shaped by secrecy and stigma. Families are often pressured to hide intersex children or seek “correction” to make their bodies conform to social expectations. 

The bill risks intensifying this pressure.

Clause 17 creates space for “approved service providers” to support interventions relating to intersex persons, yet offers little protection around informed consent, bodily autonomy, confidentiality, or coercive treatment. Under the language of “correction” or “support,” harmful interventions may become normalized. 

The intersex community has documented painful lived experiences of intersex Ghanaians that reveal the devastating consequences of stigma and invisibility. 

One heartbreaking case involved intersex twins born in Ghana’s Eastern Region in 1993, who were repeatedly forced to move from village to village because of rejection and ridicule. After losing their father, their main source of protection and support, they became even more vulnerable and reportedly experienced severe emotional distress, including suicidal thoughts linked to years of stigma and exclusion. This is what invisibility looks like in practice. 

Another painful example is the story of Ativor Holali, whose lived experience exposed the cruel realities intersex persons face in sports and public life. Ativor Holali endured invasive scrutiny, public humiliation, and social suspicion because her body did not conform to rigid expectations of femininity. Rather than being protected as a Ghanaian athlete deserving dignity and privacy, she became the subject of speculation, gossip, and institutional discomfort.

Her experience reflects a broader social crisis: when society insists that every body must fit a narrow binary definition, intersex people are forced to defend their humanity in spaces where dignity should already be guaranteed.

Intersex Persons Society Of Ghana (IPSOG)’s Ŋusẽdodo research further revealed that approximately 70 percent of intersex respondents reported depression, anxiety, trauma, or severe emotional distress linked to medical mistreatment, family rejection, bullying, and social exclusion.

The bill risks transforming these existing prejudices into institutional policy. Several provisions risk deepening surveillance, restricting advocacy, weakening confidentiality, and discouraging public education around intersex realities. Intersex-led organizations providing healthcare guidance, legal referrals, psychosocial support, and community services may face serious challenges.

This places IPSOG and other intersex-led organizations in Ghana at serious risk.

For many intersex Ghanaians, these spaces are not political luxuries.

They are survival mechanisms.

Governments derive legitimacy by protecting the natural rights of all persons, including dignity, liberty, bodily autonomy, and freedom from arbitrary interference. The bill raises concerns because it risks weakening these protections for intersex persons through surveillance, coercive interventions, and restrictions on advocacy.

Ghana’s Constitution declares that “the dignity of all persons shall be inviolable.” Articles 15, 17, 18, and 21 specifically protect dignity, equality, privacy, expression, and freedom of association. These protections should apply equally to intersex persons. 

Intersex persons are not threats to Ghanaian culture.

Intersex children are not moral dangers.

Intersex bodies are not political weapons.

They are human beings deserving dignity, healthcare, safety, and constitutional protection. 

The true measure of a democracy is how it protects those most vulnerable to exclusion. At this moment, Ghana faces a choice: deepen fear and silence, or uphold dignity, bodily autonomy, and constitutional freedom for intersex persons. 

History will remember the choice we make.

Fafali Delight Akortsu is the founder and president of the Intersex Persons Society of Ghana (IPSOG).

Continue Reading

Popular