Photo of M7 being helped by Bank moon

File

More allegations are trickling in of President Museveni’s hand in yesterday’s nullification by Court of the Anti-homosexuality Act (2014).

Former Kampala Bishop Zac Niringiye has added his voice to the claims that Museveni is partly to blame for the Constitutional Court ruling, which quashed the February signed Law.

The court ruled in favour of ten petitioners that the law had illegally been passed by parliament in December 2013 without the requisite quorum.
Dr Zac said the development was not to be celebrated by local and global rights activists as a sign of flourishing democracy in Uganda, but a reflection of patronage and populism.

He tweeted today, “Let no one deceive you or be deceived that the quashing of the Anti-Homo Act is evidence that President Museveni believes in the rule of law.”

“The quashing of the #AHA must be viewed in the light of politics of populism and patronage in Uganda and the global politics of human rights.”

Earlier yesterday, after the ruling, one of the loudest champions of the Antigay law Pastor Martin Ssempa, had blamed its quashing on Museveni’s planned visit to the US next week.

“It’s clear that this came because he is going to meet Obama in Washington for theAfrican American leaders’ summit. That’s why this judgement was rushed. All these people you see here are Obama’s agents,” said the pastor.

In the view of Dr Zac, the quashing of the Antigay Act should also be viewed in the light of politics of regime survival.

He also pointed out that the judiciary was not entirely to blame for the decision taken, noting that its independence had been high jacked by government.

“Do not forget that the man at the helm of the Constitutional court of Uganda was illegally appointed as Ag Chief Justice! He is also Ag Deputy Chief Justice,” he noted.

Meanwhile, Museveni today refused to address in detail questions on the development.

While speaking to press ahead of this month’s National Census, he said he needed to speak to the (NRM) caucus before commenting in detail about the court ruling