Connect with us

Commentary

Same-sex couples seek relationship recognition in Namibia

Supreme Court in May ruled country must recognize overseas marriages

Published

on

(Bigstock photo)

BY BRADLEY FORTUIN AND THABO BUTHELEZI | On May 16, 2023, The Supreme Court of Namibia ruled that Namibia’s immigration laws must recognize same-sex marriages validly concluded outside Namibia, setting aside the High Court decision of Jan. 20, 2022. This case’s decision will significantly impact LGBTIQ+ rights and advocacy in Namibia and the region.

Background

In August 2017, Daniel Digashu, a South African Citizen and Johann Potgieter, a Namibian citizen, approached the High Court of Namibia after the Ministry of Home Affairs and Immigration denied Digashu, a South African citizen, a work permit based on their same-sex marital status. 

Similarly, Namibian-born Anete Seiler and German-born Anita Seiler-Lilles approached the High Court of Namibia after Anita was denied permanent residence based on their marital status.

The High Court, comprised of three judges, dismissed their applications. The High Court held that the Constitution of Namibia prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation; however, it could not grant the couples’ applications because of a 2001 judgement by the Supreme Court of Namibia in Immigration Selection Board v Frank, which refused to recognize the rights of same-sex partners under the Immigration Act. The High Court criticized the discrimination that was leveled at the applicants and the earlier judgement of the Supreme Court; however, it felt bound by the Supreme Court decision.

Supreme Court

The appellants argued that the facts in the Frank case differed in that their relationship was not recognized in terms of the law. The applicants in the Frank case were in a long-term committed relationship, whereas in the case of Digashu and Seiller-Lilles, the appellants’ relationships were valid regarding the law of the countries they were respectively concluded in.

The right to dignity

The Supreme Court of Namibia’s landmark decision to support the right to dignity for same-sex couples was a significant moment in the ongoing battle for equal rights. The Supreme Court held that denying the recognition of the Digashu and Seiller-Lilles’ respective marriages violated the right to human dignity. The court stated that the Constitution of Namibia guarantees the right to dignity to its people and does not exclude based on one’s sexual orientation, gender identity and expression. The court added that the fact that this is outlined in Article 8 of the constitution meant that it is constitutionally binding and relates to the protection of other rights.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the principle that all Namibians have the right to human dignity under the law. This was also rooted in the idea that marriage is a fundamental right essential to the pursuit of happiness. Although same-sex marriages cannot be legally performed in Namibia, the court held that denying the recognition of same-sex marriages concluded lawfully outside the country violated the applicant’s constitutional rights and was a form of discrimination that had no place in modern society. The Supreme Court’s decision was a watershed moment that signaled a new era of acceptance and equality for Namibia’s LGBTIQ+ community.

The right to equality:

The Supreme Court further affirmed the right to equality for LGBTIQ+ persons. It held that the ministry’s approach infringed on the right to equality. The court declared that “spouse,” in the context of the law, includes same-sex couples. The right to equality is a fundamental human right, ensuring everyone is treated equally under the law. It is a cornerstone of democracy and is essential for protecting human dignity. In Namibia, the right to equality is enshrined in the constitution. However, despite these legal protections, discrimination still exists in many forms and affects various marginalized and vulnerable groups, such as same-sex couples.

The Supreme Court has played a critical role in interpreting and enforcing the right to equality in the Digashu, Seillers-Lilles judgment. The court interpreted the law and applied it to the specifics of this case to ensure that applicants are treated equally, giving precedence for future equality matters. The Supreme Court’s reasoning for granting equality is based on several fundamental principles. Firstly, the court recognizes everyone is entitled to the same legal protections. No one should be discriminated against based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or any other characteristic.

The court further recognizes that stigma and discrimination can take many forms and are influenced by one’s particular characteristics and identity. This is evident in cases when a law or policy appears neutral but disproportionately impacts a specific group, as can be seen in the Digashu, Seiller-Lilles matters where the ministry denied the applicants the right to equality based on their same-sex marriage status.

The court also recognizes that the right to equality is about protecting individual rights and promoting social cohesion. Stigma and discrimination can lead to social fragmentation and undermine the stability of society. By promoting equality, the court is helping to build a more cohesive, diverse, and stable community. This is also based on a deep understanding and interpretation of the principles of democracy and respect for human rights. The court proclaimed, “the recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family as indispensable for freedom, justice and peace.”

Public opinion

The court noted that the majority often influences public opinion, and elected officials express these views in Parliament. The court said it was the duty of the court to fulfill the constitutional rights of all people, including the minority groups such as LGBTIQ+ people. It is the duty of the courts to ensure, independently, that such groups are protected from stigma and discrimination and are afforded their constitutional rights. If the courts only relied on the majority’s opinions, there would be inconsistencies in who can and cannot be protected and recognized under the law.

Recognition of same-sex families

The State argued that in line with the doctrine of precedent, the term “family” does not include homosexual marriages and that in terms of the act and the constitution, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. They further argued that sexual orientation is not listed as grounds for prohibited discrimination and that equality before the law does not mean equality for each person’s relationships.

The Supreme Court stated, in its decision, however, that in addition to “spouse” not being defined as either a man or woman, neither is marriage. It held that any marriage that is legally concluded outside Namibia must be recognized in accordance with the law.

The Supreme Court noted that the facts in Frank were indeed different from the facts in the Appeals and that the statements made by the court in that case that “equality before the law for each person does not mean equality before the law for each person’s relationship,” were incompatible with the right to equality, and that it also fails to take into account the human worth and dignity of all human beings including those in same-sex relationships, which is at the core of the equality clause. It further held that the general principle of common law that if a marriage is concluded under the legal requirements for a valid marriage in a foreign country, it falls to be recognized in Namibia and that that principle applied in this matter. The court held that the ministry should have recognized the appellants’ respective marriages and that Mr. Digashu and Ms. Seiller-Lilles are to be regarded as spouses for purposes of the law.

The court went on to State that the ministry, by excluding a spouse in a same-sex marriage from inclusion within the term of “spouse,” infringed on their right to dignity and equality.

In a dissenting judgment by Justice Mainga JA, the judge states that the court had overstepped its bounds and had effectively redefined marriage. The judge further notes that the majority decision attacked traditional norms and values and threatened to undermine the institution of marriage itself. The dissenting judgement shows that there may be resistance to equal treatment of LGBTIQ+ persons. The silver lining is that four other justices recognized that the constitutional values of Namibia promote and protect the rights of queer persons.

Developments since the judgment

Following the passing of the judgment by the Supreme Court, there were emerging backlash from some members of the public and politicians. July 11, 2023, the National Assembly of Namibia passed a private member’s bill which aimed to redefine the term spouse and amends the Marriage Act. The bill was introduced with reference to Articles 81 and 45 of the Namibian Constitution to “contradict a decision of the Supreme Court of Namibia.” The proposed bill contradicts the Supreme Court’s Digashu, Seillers-Lilles’ decision. The bill was also discussed and approved by the National Council of Namibia and was sent to the President for assent but was sent back for further consultation.

The bill proposes that no marriage between persons of the same sex shall be recognized as a valid marriage in Namibia and that anyone in a same-sex marriage will not be regarded as spouse for purposes of any law in Namibia. The Marriage Act amendment states that marriage “means a legal union entered into between persons of opposite sex.”

Importance of this case

The judgment has taken a significant step forward by recognizing same-sex marriages conducted legally outside Namibia. This decision will significantly impact various aspects of the law and advocacy, including human rights, family law and equality. This decision is a milestone towards equality and human dignity. This decision positively impacts the future of the LGBTIQ+ community and society. It has the potential to promote acceptance and diversity and pave the way for a more inclusive and equal Namibian society. It further reflects the changing attitudes and values of the Namibian society towards LGBTIQ+ people. This decision is a significant step towards recognizing LGBTIQ rights in Africa, particularly considering the current regression and extreme anti-LGBTIQ sentiment being seen elsewhere.

The High Court and Supreme Court sentiments, respectively, show that there has been a change in approach around LGBTIQ+ rights within the judiciary since the 2001 judgement. In affirming that the terms spouse and family in terms of the act include persons in same-sex relationships, the court has moved from its previous jurisprudence to a jurisprudence that interpreted equality in a purposive right-giving manner.

It will also positively impact the mental health and well-being of LGBTIQ+ people, who have long faced stigma, discrimination and prejudice. The judgment is a blueprint for the role of the Courts in upholding fundamental human rights and promoting equality. The courts have played a crucial role in the fight for LGBTIQ+ rights and recognition, and this ruling will serve as a precedent for future equality cases and help shape the country’s laws, policies and practices towards equality and human rights.

Namibia still criminalizes consensual same-sex sexual activities between people of the same gender in terms of its Roman-Dutch common law, with the Criminal Procedure Act outlining procedures for punishment, although such prosecutions are rare.

Access more information on the case here.

Bradley Fortuin is the LGBTIQ+ Program Officer at the Southern Africa Litigation Center and a social justice activist.

Thabo Buthelezi is a researcher at the Southern Africa Litigation Center and a human rights activist.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Commentary

When a church fears the rainbow

Puerto Rico pastor objected to Pride symbols outside congregation

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

There are moments when an incident stops being merely a local story and begins to reveal something much deeper. What happened on June 28 outside One Church, in Comerío, Puerto Rico, belongs in that category.

I do not know who painted the rainbow colors on the asphalt and on a roadside guardrail. I do not know what motivated them, and it is not my place to justify their actions. If someone believes a law was broken, there are authorities and legal mechanisms to address that. That is not the point of this reflection.

The point is the words that followed.

Hours after those colors appeared, Pastor Jorge J. Santiago Reyes went live on social media. He said he felt threatened. He described what happened as a physical attack against his church. He appeared angry and disappointed. He called those who painted the rainbow “cowards” and “charlatans.” He expressed frustration with the support that, according to him, the municipal government of Comerío has shown toward the LGBTQ community, and with those who support posts related to that community. He repeated several times that the people responsible had “crossed the line.” He ended his message by saying, “These charlatans have to be stopped.”

As I listened to his words, I stopped thinking about the paint.

I began thinking about fear.

There is one phrase the pastor repeated again and again: “They crossed the line.” Yet he never explained what that line was. If he was referring to a possible violation of the law, that is for the authorities to determine. If he meant respect for property, there are also procedures to deal with that. But when that line remains undefined and the message begins to associate a rainbow with a threat, the question changes. It is no longer only about a guardrail or a road. It becomes a question about what boundary, in the pastor’s view, was actually crossed.

Paint can be erased.

A brush can cover the asphalt and return a guardrail to its original color.

What does not disappear so easily is the meaning of those colors.

And perhaps that is where the real conflict begins.

It is significant that this happened precisely on June 28, the day when the LGBTQ community remembers a history marked by exclusion, violence, and the struggle for dignity. What represents memory, hope, and the possibility of living without hiding for millions of people was presented by others as a threat.

I do not know why someone painted that rainbow. I do not need to know in order to ask whether those were the words society should expect from a pastor.

A religious leader may feel hurt, frustrated, or angry. What he cannot forget is the responsibility that comes with every public expression. His words do not end when a livestream ends. They move beyond the space of his church, reach people who may never share his faith, and help shape the way others see those who think differently. When a pastor calls other people “charlatans” and “cowards,” says they “have to be stopped,” and turns a rainbow into evidence of an attack, he is no longer speaking only from frustration. He begins to build a discourse that can feed rejection toward a community far larger than the people responsible for that act.

There was another moment in the livestream that caught my attention. The pastor reminded viewers how much he has served Comerío, how much he has accompanied his community, and how much he has worked for it. I have no reason to question that service. I am sure many people can testify to the good he has done.

That is precisely why it was difficult to hear.

Pastoral vocation is not about reminding a town of everything one has done for it when conflict appears. Service does not lose its value when it goes unrecognized; it loses something when it becomes an argument to claim a moral position from which to speak down to others. A person who serves does so because that is the nature of the calling, not because that service grants authority to discredit those who think differently.

As a pastor, that part of the message left me deeply uneasy. Not because I expect ministers of God to be perfect. We are not. But because our words carry weight, we are called to speak with greater responsibility. Some expressions build bridges. Others raise walls. Some words invite encounter. Others end up justifying rejection.

The paint will disappear. A brush will be enough to cover the asphalt and return the guardrail to its original color.

The words will not disappear as easily.

They will remain recorded in a video, shared again and again on social media, and remembered by those who heard them. They will remain long after the last trace of paint has been erased.

When this episode is remembered, it probably will not be because of the rainbow that appeared outside One Church, in Comerío, Puerto Rico.

It will be because of the words a pastor chose to use when speaking about it.

And that difference changes everything.

Continue Reading

Commentary

The boy they refused to forget

Jonathan David Muir Burgos released from Cuban prison after participating in protest

Published

on

Jonathan David Muir Burgos (Graphic by Ignacio Estrada Cepero)

When the Washington Blade first reported the story of Jonathan David Muir Burgos, the news centered on a 16-year-old Cuban teenager who had been sent to prison after taking part in a public protest in Morón, Ciego de Ávila. At the time, the facts were straightforward. A minor had lost his freedom, and his case was beginning to attract attention beyond Cuba’s borders.

Today there is another fact that deserves to be recorded with the same rigor.

Jonathan is no longer in prison.

His release, confirmed by multiple news organizations, closes one chapter of a story that, for months, was followed by journalists, human rights organizations, religious communities, and countless individuals who refused to let his name disappear from public view. Each of them became part of a much larger effort to ensure that the imprisonment of a Cuban teenager would not fade into silence as the news cycle moved on.

That collective attention does not explain every decision that ultimately led to Jonathan’s release, and it would be irresponsible to suggest otherwise. Judicial processes are rarely shaped by a single factor. What can be said with certainty is that Jonathan’s story never disappeared. It continued to be documented, discussed and followed long after the initial headlines were published.

Behind every widely reported case there is a family living a reality that rarely appears in the news. In Jonathan’s case, there was a father who also serves as a Protestant pastor and who spent months speaking publicly about his son while asking others not to forget him. There was a mother enduring the uncertainty familiar to any parent separated from a child. There were classmates, friends, and neighbors waiting for the day when Jonathan would no longer be known as the teenager behind bars, but simply as the young man returning home.

The image of a prison gate opening often marks the end of a news story. In reality, it marks the beginning of something far more difficult. A teenager must resume an interrupted education, reconnect with friends, rebuild ordinary routines, and recover a sense of normalcy after months in confinement. Those experiences seldom become headlines, yet they are part of the true cost of imprisonment.

Jonathan’s release is therefore more than an update to a story previously reported. It is a reminder that public attention has value. Journalism matters because it documents. Human rights organizations matter because they investigate. Communities matter because they refuse indifference. Families matter because they continue to wait, even when the waiting becomes unbearable. None of these efforts should be viewed in isolation. Together they ensure that a person’s story does not disappear simply because time has passed.

Many people leave prison after being forgotten.

Jonathan David Muir Burgos walked out of prison knowing that, throughout those months, thousands of people had continued to speak his name, follow his case and hope for the day when this story could be told differently.

Today, that day has arrived.

Continue Reading

Commentary

Religion, spirituality, and humanity: finding meaning in a complex world

LGBTQ refugees find hope in faith, common humanity

Published

on

By

A UNHCR-affiliated community center for refugees in Kraków, Poland, on April 5, 2024. LGBTQ refugees around the world often find hope in religion and their shared humanity. (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

Religion and spirituality continue to shape the lives of billions of people around the world. Whether expressed through organized faith traditions, personal beliefs, cultural practices, or philosophical reflection, they remain powerful influences on how people understand themselves, others, and the world around them.

As a displaced person, I have seen firsthand how religion and spirituality affect people’s lives during times of uncertainty, hardship, and hope. In communities facing displacement, poverty, illness, conflict, and long waits for resettlement opportunities, questions about meaning, purpose, resilience, and belonging are not abstract concepts. They are part of everyday survival.

Religion and spirituality are often discussed together, yet they are not identical. Religion generally involves organized systems of belief, sacred texts, rituals, and communities. Spirituality is often more personal and may involve an individual’s search for meaning, connection, and inner peace without necessarily belonging to a specific faith tradition.

Despite their differences, both seek to answer some of humanity’s oldest questions: Why are we here? How should we live? How do we cope with suffering? What gives life meaning?

A search shared across cultures

Human beings have always searched for answers to the mysteries of existence. Across continents and throughout history, people have developed different ways of understanding life, death, nature, and the universe.

Christians may turn to the Bible. Muslims may seek guidance from the Quran. Jews may draw wisdom from the Torah. Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Indigenous peoples, and many others have their own spiritual traditions and teachings.

Recently, an Australian reader, Eveline Goy, shared a thoughtful reflection after reading one of my earlier articles. She noted that while some people may speak of “false prophets” based on their religious beliefs, others may find truth and wisdom in entirely different traditions. She also highlighted the rich spiritual heritage of Australia’s First Nations peoples, whose stories of the Rainbow Serpent continue to shape cultural identity and understanding of creation.

Her reflection reminded me that while beliefs vary widely, the desire to understand our place in the universe appears to be deeply human.

Religion, love, and LGBTQ people

For many LGBTQI+ people, religion can be both a source of comfort and a source of pain.

Throughout history, faith communities have offered people hope, belonging, and moral guidance. Yet many LGBTQI+ individuals have also experienced rejection, exclusion, or condemnation from religious institutions because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

As a queer refugee, I know how deeply these experiences can affect a person’s sense of self-worth and belonging. Many LGBTQI+ refugees I work with were not only rejected by society but also by families and faith communities they once trusted. Some were told they were sinful, broken, or unworthy of love. Others were forced to hide their identities in order to remain accepted.

Yet this is not the whole story.

Across the world, there are also religious leaders, churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, and faith communities that embrace LGBTQI+ people and affirm their dignity. Many believers interpret their faith through the values of compassion, justice, mercy, and love rather than exclusion.

At its heart, love is one of the most universal values found across spiritual traditions. Whether expressed through faith, friendship, family, or community, love has the power to heal wounds, build bridges, and restore dignity.

For many LGBTQI+ people, the challenge is not choosing between faith and identity but finding spaces where both can coexist.

Religion and spirituality in difficult times

We live in a world facing numerous challenges. Wars continue across several regions. Climate change affects communities through droughts, floods, and extreme weather events. Economic uncertainty impacts millions of families. Refugees and displaced people face uncertain futures.

In such circumstances, many people turn to religion or spirituality for comfort and guidance.

Here in Gorom Refugee Settlement Camp, I see this every day. Some gather for prayer. Others find strength in sacred texts. Some find comfort in collective worship, while others seek peace through personal reflection and meditation.

For many, faith provides hope when circumstances seem hopeless.

Yet I have also observed something equally important. Not everyone draws strength from religion. Some find resilience through friendship, mutual support, activism, creativity, and the determination to keep moving forward despite adversity.

This reminds us that while religion and spirituality can be sources of strength, so too can our shared humanity.

The human values that unite us

One of the most remarkable aspects of religion and spirituality is that despite their differences, many traditions promote similar values: Compassion, kindness, forgiveness, generosity, honesty, and respect for others.

These values are not exclusive to any single religion or philosophy. They appear across cultures, faiths, and secular worldviews.

Living in a refugee community has reinforced this lesson. Some of the most generous people I have met are deeply religious. Others are not religious at all. What matters most is not necessarily what people believe, but how they treat one another.

When someone shares food with a hungry neighbor, that is compassion.

When a person comforts a frightened child, that is humanity.

When communities stand together despite differences, that is solidarity.

These actions often speak louder than doctrine.

Building bridges in a diverse world

Religion and spirituality have inspired extraordinary acts of kindness throughout history. Yet they have also contributed to division when people become convinced that only their own beliefs are valid.

In today’s interconnected world, we encounter a greater diversity of perspectives than ever before. This diversity can enrich societies, but it also requires humility, curiosity, and respect.

No individual, community, or tradition possesses all the answers to life’s mysteries.

The challenge is not to eliminate differences but to learn how to coexist peacefully despite them.

For LGBTQI+ people, refugees, people of faith, and those without religious beliefs, dialogue and mutual respect remain essential. We all benefit when societies create space for people to live authentically while respecting the dignity of others.

Religion and spirituality continue to play important roles in human life. They help many people find meaning, resilience, comfort, and community during difficult times.

At the same time, the values that often matter most compassion, dignity, kindness, justice, and love are not confined to any single religion or belief system.

My experiences as a queer refugee have shown me that hope can emerge from many places. Some find it in prayer. Some find it in philosophy. Some find it in activism. Some find it in human connection.

Perhaps what ultimately matters is not which path we follow, but whether that path encourages us to become more compassionate, understanding, and caring human beings.

In an uncertain world marked by division and conflict, our shared humanity may be the strongest foundation upon which we can build a more peaceful, inclusive, and loving future for LGBTQI+ people, for people of faith, and for all humanity.

Aby lives in the Gorom Refugee Settlement Camp in South Sudan.

Continue Reading

Popular