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 Namibiaās immigration laws must recognize same-sex marriages validly concluded outside Namibia, setting aside the High Court decision of Jan. 20, 2022. This caseās 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 couplesā 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 appellantsā relationships were valid regarding the law of the countries they were respectively concluded in.
The right to dignity
The Supreme Court of Namibiaās 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-Lillesā 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 oneās 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 Courtās 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 applicantās constitutional rights and was a form of discrimination that had no place in modern society. The Supreme Courtās decision was a watershed moment that signaled a new era of acceptance and equality for Namibiaās LGBTIQ+ community.
The right to equality:
The Supreme Court further affirmed the right to equality for LGBTIQ+ persons. It held that the ministryās 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 Courtās 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 oneās 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, āthe 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.ā
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 majorityās 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 āfamilyā 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 personās 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 āequality before the law for each person does not mean equality before the law for each personās relationship,ā 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 appellantsā 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 āspouse,ā 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 memberās 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 ācontradict a decision of the Supreme Court of Namibia.ā The proposed bill contradicts the Supreme Courtās Digashu, Seillers-Lillesā 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 āmeans a legal union entered into between persons of opposite sex.ā
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 countryās 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.
Commentary
Trumpās return threatens Ugandaās gender equality and trans community
US has played pivotal role in supporting LGBTQ rights around the world

The last few weeks have seen a dramatic shift in the global landscape ever since Donald Trump returned to the presidency of the United States in January 2025. In just his first few weeks in office, he has rolled out a flurry of executive orders that radically reshape trans rights ā most recently banning trans women and girls from participating in womenās sports at federally funded schools. This move, a focal point of his 2024 campaign, accompanies another sweeping directive redefining sex as strictly male or female at birth, effectively denying the legal reality of transgender and nonbinary identities.
This represents a stark departure from recent U.S. policy, which had recognized gender identity as a protected category under federal law, following the Supreme Courtās landmark ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020). Rolling back those precedents and restricting transgender peopleās rights across education, housing, healthcare, federal employment, and more, means that the new administration has signaled that it is willing to reverse hard-fought civil rights gains in the name of ārestoring biological truth.ā
Historically, the United States has played a pivotal role in supporting LGBTQ+ rights worldwide. Over the past decades, U.S. foreign policy, funding initiatives, and diplomatic interventions have often helped protect marginalized groups abroad from violence, discrimination, and stigma. Ugandan civil society organizations, especially those advocating for LGBTQ+ communities, have relied on U.S. backing ā both in principle and in practice ā by receiving grants, legal support, or endorsements from U.S. diplomatic missions. This assistance has been critical in a country where key population communities, particularly transgender individuals, face rampant societal backlash. Moreover, the recent passage of Ugandaās Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA) has entrenched an increasingly restrictive and repressive legal framework, fueling widespread societal stigma and discrimination that has intensified at home and is echoed in other parts of the continent.
In Uganda, ātransgenderā itself is not legally recognized; most identity documents still list only male or female, without mechanisms to update the markers for those who have transitioned or identify outside binary classifications. This makes everyday life a constant struggle, with people facing suspicion or ridicule whenever their physical appearance doesnāt match the gender on their ID.
For transgender Ugandans, accessing healthcare is fraught with challenges. While recent years have seen small pockets of progress ā such as a Key Populations desk led by the Ministry of Health and the Uganda AIDS Commission in partnership with various development agencies, as well as a few clinics offering trans-friendly services and modest recognition of transgender-specific needs ā these efforts remain precarious and at risk of faltering.
One reason is the chilling effect that new U.S. executive orders may have on international donor funding. If federal agencies are mandated to halt the āpromotionā or āsupportā of what the Trump administration terms āgender ideology,ā projects focusing on transgender health, counseling, or HIV prevention may find themselves unable to secure necessary funds.
Following a sudden directive from PEPFAR, all implementing partners must suspend their activities for 90 days while determining how to proceed under the new executive orders. This abrupt halt severely disrupts Tranz Network Uganda (TNU)ās community-led HIV prevention and treatment programs ā funded for essential interventions such as PrEP, ART initiation, HIV testing, health education, and the distribution of condoms and lubricants in trans community hotspots. As a direct result, 52 trans persons on ART now face treatment interruptions, two hundred will lose access to critical prevention kits and lubricants, and health talks planned for one hundred community members are on hold. Beyond these immediate setbacks, the directive endangers broader HIV response gains and disproportionately impacts a population already at high risk and facing systematic marginalization.
For a population that already struggles to access basic care, any interruption or shortfall in medical supplies or specialized training will have dire consequences. Ugandaās trans community also depends on the moral and political support once offered by international partners. If the U.S. signals it no longer treats trans rights as human rights, local leaders who are already hostile to trans people could become more emboldened to adopt harsher measures. That could mean further restrictions on transgender-friendly healthcare, more aggressive policing, and the closure of community centers.
The precarious situation is compounded by existing human rights violations targeting sexual and gender minorities such as the Anti-Homosexuality Act. Transgender Ugandans often face physical violence, arbitrary arrests, and public outing, leading to loss of jobs, denial of housing, and ostracization from families.
In the past, when local advocates or victims have sought help from foreign embassies or humanitarian agencies, they often turned to offices backed by U.S. funding or support. Now, in the wake of Trumpās orders, a tense atmosphere has arisen ā again. Civil society groups are questioning whether they should tailor their programs more conservatively to avoid losing grants. Community leaders warn that a chain reaction could follow: When the U.S. steps away from acknowledging gender identity, local officials who are unsympathetic to transgender individuals see a green light to intensify crackdown efforts.
We must urge the U.S. government to reconsider these orders. At stake are the lives and well-being of people whose dignity and identity are summarily dismissed by a return to rigid definitions of sex and gender. Failing to uphold transgender rights and cutting off resources to supportive programs can worsen Ugandaās strained public health system ā particularly for those seeking HIV and mental health services.Ā
The United States should revisit its role as a leader in upholding the principles of equality and nondiscrimination, principles that once were hallmarks of its global engagement. Local communities and advocacy groups also need continued support and engagement from both governmental and non-governmental U.S. entities, which can influence policy through targeted funding, diplomacy, and public statements affirming that trans rights are human rights.
Moving forward, the administration in Washington should consider preserving or at least carving out exemptions for essential health, legal, and community-building services. If fully reversing these executive orders is politically difficult, then agencies should consult with experts, activists, and members of the transgender community themselves to mitigate harm and ensure that humanitarian needs are not overshadowed by ideological directives.
Uganda is also party to various regional and international human rights treaties that obligate it to uphold non-discrimination. In August 2023, the Ministry of Health released a press statement mandating that health services be accessible to all without discrimination ā a pledge that stands in stark contrast to the current environment following the passage of the AHA. Government officials would do well to honor these commitments by reassuring the local transgender population that essential healthcare remains accessible, and by addressing the urgent need for legal identity mechanisms. Ultimately, dismantling the fragile network of trans-focused support not only imperils those on the margins but also undermines global progress toward fundamental human rights, equality, and compassion ā values that should know no borders.
Williams Apako is the executive officer of the Tranz Network Uganda and a board member of the Global Fundās Uganda Country Coordinating Mechanism.
Commentary
Reflecting on interactions with President Jimmy Carter
An LGBTQ ally and devout Christian who adored his wife of 77 years

Itās September 1998, and Iām at lunch with several other journalists and a grandmother. As I sip my Coke, I hear a friendly male voice. You can tell heās smiling. āTime to shake hands now,ā he says.
Weāre at the Carter Center in Atlanta for a few days. The other reporters and I have received Rosalynn Carter Fellowships for Mental Health Journalism. The grandma sitting with us is former first lady Rosalynn Carter, and the man with the warm smile is former President Jimmy Carter. āAs soon as we get on a plane,ā Mrs. Carter says, āJimmy walks down the aisles and shakes hands with everybody. He knows they want to say hi to him.ā
Jimmy Carter died Dec. 29 in hospice care in Georgia. President Biden declared Thursday a National Day of Mourning and Carter’s funeral will take place at Washington National Cathedral that day. After the funeral, Carter and his family will return to Plains, Ga. to Maranatha Baptist Church for a private funeral and then to Carter’s private residence for interment.
Twenty-five years ago, we journos were at the Carter Center to meet with experts in mental health so we could report accurately on the issue.
The fellowship program was founded in 1996 by Rosalynn Carter. Mrs. Carter, who died in 2023 at age 96, was no mere figurehead. She knew every detail about our fellowship projects. Heaven help us, if sheād caught us asleep at the switch.
It takes nothing away from Mrs. Carter to note how essential her personal and professional partnership with her husband Jimmy Carter was to her and her work.
Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter were married in 1946. The first thing that hit you when you saw them together was how deeply they loved each other. There was nothing sappy about how they were with each other.
One morning, President Carter ambled into the conference room before our session on stigma and mental health was about to begin. Kenneth W. Starr had just delivered his report on (then) President Bill Clintonās alleged abuses and affair with Monica Lewinsky. Naturally, we, the reporters in the room, asked Jimmy Carter how he felt about Bill Clinton. We were committed to mental health journalism. But, a former president was there ā standing by the wall.
President Carter didnāt seem to want to hold back. He said he didnāt think that highly of Bill Clinton. But, before he could go on to say more, Mrs. Carter gave him a look. The look you give your spouse after decades of loving togetherness. Especially, if youāre a political couple and your mateās being grilled by scribes eager to make news. āI know,ā Jimmy Carter said, smiling, to Rosalynn Carter, his most ardent supporter and astute critic, āIām talking too much, darlinā. Iām leaving now.ā
You could tell how proud President Carter was of Mrs. Carter. At lunch or dinner, youād see him nodding approvingly at her when she spoke of her work. You could see it in how he teased her. āRosalynn talks about mental health all the time,ā Jimmy Carter said, with a laugh, one night, as he saw Mrs. Carter chatting with us about how the media reported on mental health.
What I most recall about Jimmy Carter is his generosity of spirit. āI beat Jerry Ford,ā President Carter said, ābut Rosalyn and I are good friends with the Fords now.ā
He wasnāt using the word āfriendsā in the way politicos often do. The Carters and the Fords were friends who worked together on mental health and other issues.
I hadnāt yet come out as a lesbian when I was at the Carter Center. But I didnāt feel I had to remain closeted or silent about my (then) partner. Carter was, what today likely would be an oxymoron: a born-again Christian, who welcomed everyone.
The Carter Center, which the Carters founded after his presidency, is like a theme park, where, instead of standing in line for attractions, people work to resolve conflicts and eradicate diseases.
Thank you, President Carter for your work, humanity and being an LGBTQ ally. R.I.P., Jimmy Carter.
Kathi Wolfe, a writer and poet, was a regular contributor to the Blade. She wrote this tribute just before she passed away in June 2024.
Commentary
What does Trudeau’s resignation mean for the queer community?
Be careful what you wish for

LGBTQ Global originally published this commentary. The Washington Blade is republishing it with permission.
On Monday, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced he was stepping down as leader of the Liberal Party, and thus as prime minister as soon as the party chooses his replacement. Thereās a lot to unpack about how we got here and what happens next, but itās important to note exactly how transformative Justin Trudeau was on LGBTQ rights in Canada.
When Trudeau came to power in 2015, he was following nearly 10 years of rule under the Stephen Harper Conservatives. Harperās Conservative Party was new force in Canadian politics, merging the old-school business-minded Progressive Conservative Party with the more radical and frequently explicitly bigoted Canadian Alliance/Reform Party. Harper was able to take advantage of Canadaās badly designed electoral system and fractured political left to win three elections with 36, 37, and 39 percent of the vote. Unbowed by the lack of majority electoral mandate, the Conservatives relished in forcing through their agenda without seeking support from other parties.
Harper immediately called a vote on repealing same-sex marriage, which had become national law only a year prior (the vote failed, which Harperās defenders like to argue was the plan all along.) He immediately slashed funding to civil rights defenders who had won a string of court victories for LGBTQ people. Arts, culture, and tourism boards were warned theyād come under scrutiny if they funded queer groups and programs. The Conservatives blocked justice reforms like equalizing the age of consent and protecting transgender people in law.
After a decade of this shit, LGBTQ Canadians and progressives were exhausted and demoralized.
Trudeau swept into office in 2015 and set about immediately changing the tone. That first year was a lot of photo ops and press statements and Cabinet appointments designed to ensure that every marginalized community felt that they were represented in the new government. Trudeau even became the first prime minister to march in a Pride parade ā something he did over and over in multiple cities.
Conservatives derisively called it all āvirtue signalingā or and relentlessly told a certain segment of the electorate that they should be offended by it all.
But for the most part, the Trudeau government delivered, especially for LGBTQ people.
Two key reforms came about in its first term: An overhaul of the Criminal Code that removed a number of laws that were still used to target queer people, including a sodomy law that included a higher age of consent and a ban on gay sex if it involved more than two people. Also removed were several obscenity and bawdy house provisions that were used to harass queer communities.
The other was the trans rights bill, C-16, which included explicit protections for trans people in federal human rights law and included them as a protected class in the hate crime and hate speech provisions of the Criminal Code. Itās genuinely astounding in retrospect how much impact this bill had given how little it actually changed. Canadian courts had already ruled that trans people were generally protected under sex discrimination laws, and in any event, the federal human rights code doesnāt really cover much in Canada. The far more important provincial human rights codes had mostly been updated to include āgender identityā years before the federal code anyway.
But the passage of C-16 was also the launching pad for one of Canadaās most notorious far-right cranks, Jordan Peterson. An obviously disturbed and disgraced former university professor, Peterson gained a global following of anti-trans weirdos and incels by spreading lies about C-16. The community that formed around Peterson is now a core constituency of the Conservative Party under opposition leader Pierre Poilievre. Indeed, Petersonās interview of Poilievre last week on YouTube was treated as some kind of Yalta Conference for cringey weirdos ā and may be why Elon Musk took a sudden interest in Poilievre this week.
But that wasnāt all Trudeau delivered for the queer community.
The Trudeau government banned conversion therapy. It restored and expanded funding to civil rights groups, queer organizations, and the arts. It drafted and implemented a strategy to promote 2SLGBTQIA+ rights and inclusion across government (yeah, that the governmentās official acronym.) It issued an historic apology, expungement, and compensation scheme for people whoād been convicted or fired from the public service under old anti-gay laws. It added an āXā gender option for federal ID (passports). It ended the ban on gay/bi blood, tissue, and semen donors.
Trudeau also guided Canada through an unprecedented series of global and national crises, including the COVID pandemic, the first Trump presidency, Russiaās invasion of Ukraine, an insurgency against the government (fully supported by the Conservatives), and a national reckoning with Canadaās shameful treatment of its Indigenous people.
But he was unable or unwilling to reckon with a series of major problems that have only been exacerbated by those crises: A soaring cost of living, a crumbling health care system, and a growing sense that nothing seems to āworkā in Canada ā from a post office that refuses to deliver packages, to parks that refuse to unlock their bathrooms, to criminals that go free because packed courts canāt hear their trials in time, to infrastructure and defense projects that drag on years beyond schedule and billions of dollars over budget.
The fact that most of these problems are under the jurisdiction of provinces that are almost entirely being mismanaged by Conservatives ā sorry, the feds have to wear Canada Post ā hasnāt blunted the peopleās decision that Trudeau is to blame for every ill in Canada. Heck, thatās basically the Conservative slogan these days.
Trudeau probably should have stepped down a few months ago, to give the party a chance to choose a successor in an orderly fashion. Instead, heās made himself a lame duck days before Trump takes office, threatening to annex Canada (and Greenland and Panama) through economic power, whatever the hell he means by any of that. The Liberal Party will soon announce rules for how a nationwide vote on the new leader will be held, and candidates are already jockeying into place. A new leader will have to be chosen by March 25, when parliament is recalled and the opposition is likely to force an early election, likely in mid-May.
According to current polls, the Liberal Party is cooked, and the Conservatives are poised to pull a near-sweep of parliament. Of course, itās also possible that a leadership contest brings a fresh appealing face to the Liberals, and theyāre able to recover some position ahead of the vote, whenever it is. Or Canadians will become concerned with the Conservative Partyās growing ties to Trump Republicans.
Poilievre, who cut his teeth in the Harper government as its most unscrupulous attack dog, is trying to position himself as the reasonable person who can unite and fix a fractured Canada. I have my doubts, given his entire public history. Heās also been notably palling around the worst anti-LGBTQ bigots in Canada and making vaguely threatening statements about banning trans women from bathrooms.
As Canadians get ready to head to the polls, itās worth remembering what Conservatives do when theyāre in power.
-
Opinions5 days ago
Iām nervous about D.C.ās ability to stage WorldPride
-
Canada3 days ago
Canadian LGBTQ group cancels WorldPride participation over Trump policies
-
Out & About2 days ago
Camp Rehoboth Theatre Company kicks off new season
-
Commentary4 days ago
Trumpās return threatens Ugandaās gender equality and trans community