Commentary
Same-sex couples seek relationship recognition in Namibia
Supreme Court in May ruled country must recognize overseas marriages
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.
Africa
When home becomes a journey: migration, memory, and the African diaspora
People carry pieces of previous lives wherever they go
Sometimes I wonder whether home is a place or a feeling.
I have lived in places where I never imagined I would stay. I have crossed borders I never expected to cross and spent years in refugee communities where people wake up each morning wondering what the future will bring. I have known Kakuma Refugee Camp in Kenya, spent time in Zambia and South Africa, and now live in Gorom Refugee Settlement in South Sudan.
So, when I think about migration, I don’t think first about passports, borders, statistics, or immigration offices.
I think about people.
I think about the mother who leaves everything behind because she wants her children to survive. I think about the young person crossing a border with little more than a phone, a few clothes, and memories of a life that may no longer exist. I think about the refugee who has spent years waiting for a durable solution and still doesn’t know where they will eventually call home.
Migration is often described simply as movement from one place to another. But sometimes it is much more than that.
It can mean leaving behind a version of yourself.
Africa has always been moving
Africa’s migration story did not begin with modern refugee camps or today’s international borders.
People have moved across this continent for generations. They have followed trade routes, searched for pasture and water, moved for marriage, education and employment, escaped conflict, and built new communities elsewhere.
Migration has always been part of African life.
Today, people move for many different reasons. Some flee war and political instability. Others escape persecution or discrimination. Some leave because they cannot find work or see a future for themselves. Others migrate to study, find employment, start businesses, join family members or simply seek new opportunities. There is an important distinction here.
Not every African migrant is a refugee.
A refugee is someone forced to leave because returning home is unsafe. An asylum seeker is someone seeking protection and waiting for a decision on their claim. Exile can mean living away from one’s homeland, sometimes unwillingly. The diaspora is broader still: it includes people of African origin living outside their country or continent, whether they left by choice or were forced to leave.
These words matter because behind each one is a human story.
When leaving is not a choice
I know what it means when leaving is no longer a choice.
Forced displacement takes something from you that is difficult to explain. You may still have your memories, your language and perhaps a few possessions, but the ordinary things that once made life predictable can disappear.
You begin again.
Sometimes you begin again in another country. Sometimes you begin again in a refugee camp.
My experiences in Kakuma taught me that displacement does not necessarily end when you cross a border and reach somewhere safer. The uncertainty can continue for years.
Now, in Gorom Refugee Settlement, I see that uncertainty in the lives of people around me. Mothers worry about food and the health of their children. Young people wonder whether they will return to education. Others wait for resettlement or another safe pathway while trying to build a life with very limited resources. There is a strange feeling in waiting.
You are physically present somewhere, but mentally you may still be traveling towards a future you cannot see.

What happens to identity?
One of the hardest questions migration raises is: Who am I when I am no longer where I came from?
A person can cross a border in a few hours. Identity doesn’t move that quickly.
You carry your accent.
You carry your food.
You carry your mother’s stories.
You carry songs you heard as a child.
You carry the names of people who may never know where you ended up.
You carry memories.
And sometimes you carry pain.
I have met people who have lived in several countries and can no longer give a simple answer when asked where they are from. They may have been born in one country, grown up in another, lived in a refugee settlement somewhere else and now dream of resettling in a fourth.
Does that make them less African?
I don’t think so.
Perhaps it makes their identity larger.
Carrying Africa across borders
The African diaspora is sometimes discussed as though it were simply a population scattered around the world. I see it differently.
People carry pieces of home wherever they go.
An African family living in Australia, Canada, Britain, the United States, or elsewhere may still cook the food they grew up eating. They may speak their mother tongue at home, send money to relatives, listen to African music, support community projects and remain closely connected to events thousands of miles away. Migration doesn’t necessarily erase belonging.
Sometimes it creates several belongings at once.
The diaspora also contributes enormously to communities back home. Remittances help families pay school fees, buy food, build houses, access healthcare and start businesses. Migrants also carry knowledge, professional experience, ideas and connections that can benefit communities across borders.
A person may leave Africa physically and still spend much of their life contributing to Africa.
That matters.
The price of being a migrant
But migration has another side.
Not every new country means a new beginning.
For some migrants, the journey leads to racism, xenophobia, exploitation, or discrimination. People can be judged because of their nationality, accent, skin color, immigration status or refugee identity.
Others discover that qualifications earned at home are not recognized. A professional becomes a cleaner. A teacher struggles to find work. A skilled worker is told to start again.
There is nothing wrong with honest work. The problem begins when someone’s dignity is reduced because they are a migrant.
For refugees, bureaucracy can become another form of suffering. A person can become a case number, waiting months or years for interviews, decisions, relocation opportunities, or family reunification.
But life doesn’t stop while the paperwork continues.
Children grow older, parents become sick, people lose loved ones, birthdays come and go and still the waiting continues.
I sometimes wonder whether the people making decisions about migration fully understand how heavy that waiting can become for someone sitting on the other side of the process.
Women, children, and LGBTQ refugees
Migration does not affect everyone in the same way.
Women often carry enormous responsibilities after displacement. They may become the main providers for their children while dealing with their own trauma and uncertainty.
Children experience displacement differently. They may not fully understand why they had to leave home, but they understand the absence of familiar faces, schools and routines.
Young people face another difficult question: how do you plan a future when you don’t know which country you will be living in?
For LGBTQ refugees, the journey can be even more complicated. Some leave because the place where they were born no longer feels safe for them. They may have experienced rejection, threats, violence or discrimination before they ever reached a refugee settlement.
And yet, even in such circumstances, people create community.
In Gorom, LGBTQ refugees and asylum seekers come from different African countries and backgrounds. We don’t always agree on everything. But we understand something important: when the world has already made you feel unwanted, having people around you who understand your experience can mean everything.
Community can become another form of home.
Should borders decide our worth?
I understand why countries have borders. Countries have laws and responsibilities.
But I sometimes ask myself a simpler question: Should crossing a border change the value of a human life?
A child doesn’t become less deserving of food because they were born on the other side of a political boundary.
A mother doesn’t become less worthy of safety because she crossed without the right document.
A refugee doesn’t stop being a human being while waiting for an immigration decision.
From a Humanist perspective, this seems straightforward to me. Human dignity should not depend on nationality.
We can have immigration systems and still treat migrants with compassion.
We can protect borders without forgetting that the people standing behind those borders are human beings.
We can disagree about migration policy without dehumanizing migrants.
That balance isn’t easy. But perhaps that is exactly why we need more humanity in conversations about migration.
What does home mean now?
I have asked myself this question many times: Where is home?
Is it where I was born?
Where I first felt safe?
Where my memories live?
Or perhaps home isn’t always a geographical location.
Maybe home can be the people who stand beside you.
Maybe it is the language you speak when you are emotional.
Maybe it is the smell of food that takes you back to childhood.
Maybe, after so much has been taken away, home becomes something you slowly rebuild.
My birthday falls on Sept. 12. Birthdays usually invite us to think about another year of life. But for someone who has experienced displacement, another birthday can mean something deeper.
It means I made it through another year.
I am still here.
And I think about the many refugees who don’t know whether they will be safe long enough to celebrate their next birthday. I think about children growing up in camps who deserve to celebrate their birthdays in a home they can call their own.
That thought stays with me.
We are more than where we come from
Migration has taught me that people cannot be reduced to the countries printed on their passports.
We are our memories, our relationships, our struggles, our dreams, and our choices.
Africa’s diaspora is not simply a story of people leaving Africa. It is also a story of people carrying Africa with them.
And the refugee experience is not simply a story of loss. It is also a story of survival.
I don’t know where my own journey will eventually take me. Perhaps that is one of the things migration teaches us: we can make plans, but life sometimes writes a different story.
What I do know is that every person deserves the chance to live without fear, to love without persecution, to work with dignity, to raise children safely and to imagine a future.
Borders may separate countries.
They should never separate us from our humanity.
If migration has taught me anything, it is that home is not always the place we left behind. Sometimes home is the safe place we are still searching for.
And sometimes, while searching, we become one another’s home.
Commentary
When a church fears the rainbow
Puerto Rico pastor objected to Pride symbols outside congregation
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.
Commentary
The boy they refused to forget
Jonathan David Muir Burgos released from Cuban prison after participating in protest
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.
