A three-judge panel of the High Court sitting as a constitutional court has rebuffed Jan Willem Akster, from the Netherlands, and Jana Gonani who applied for the decriminalization of same sex relationships.
The ruling means that the judges, Joseph Chigona, Vikochi Chima, and Chimbizgani have upheld the validity of sections 153 and 154 of the Penal Code.
Section 153 reads: “Any person who— (a) has carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature; or (c) permits a male person to have carnal knowledge of him or her against the order of nature; shall be guilty of a felony and shall be liable to imprisonment for 14 years.”
Among others, the ruling, delivered on Friday stated that the applicants failed to provide evidence showing how the country’s laws discriminated against homosexuals.
They further said that if the applicants were still unsatisfied, they would need to petition the Parliament to make necessary amendments to the laws.
The court found that the country’s laws did not infringe on the rights of people who identify as homosexuals, as the applicants had claimed.
Akstar, 51, is facing nine charges of sexual abuse and sodomy.
He is accused of molesting students and employees at Timotheos Foundation when he was working as financial manager at the Mapanga-based orphanage in Blantyre and is alleged to have committed the crimes between January 2018 and April 2020.
Timotheos Foundation offers a bursary scheme by paying school fees for needy students. Akstar is alleged to have been taking advantage of this scheme to force himself on beneficiaries.
On the other hand, Gomani was convicted by Senior Resident Magistrate Court in Mangochi in December 2021 of two offences of obtaining by false pretences and unnatural offences contrary to Section 119 and 1539(c) of the Penal Code, respectively.
He was sentenced to three years on the first count and three years on the second count and eight years on the third count.
He later filed summons on application for referral for certification of the matter as constitutional under Section 9(2) of the Courts Act in relation to the third count.
This article? It’s got some interesting ideas, definitely. You’ve touched on a few good points, but it feels like there’s more to explore. Digging a bit deeper next time could really add value. On the plus side, you are thinking outside the box, which is great. Your writing style gets the point across, but it could use a bit more energy. The examples are decent, but adding some spice wouldn’t hurt. I’m not saying it’s bad, just that there’s room for improvement. Consider tightening up your arguments and including more compelling facts. You’ve got potential. Keep pushing yourself, and your next piece could be truly impressive. Keep at it! Your next article might just blow me away. Or maybe not. We’ll see.
Your point of view caught my eye and was very interesting. Thanks. I have a question for you.
Thanks for sharing. I read many of your blog posts, cool, your blog is very good.