Constitutional Court overturns law criminalising insults against women

Uganda's Constitutional Court has declared a law criminalising insults against the modesty of women unconstitutional, ruling that it discriminates on the basis of sex.

The court also struck down provisions of the Magistrates Courts Act that allow magistrates to investigate complaints, prepare charges and later preside over the same criminal cases.

In the Wednesday, November 4, 2026 ruling, the court declared Section 115 of the Penal Code Act unconstitutional and directed the Attorney General to introduce amendments in Parliament within 12 months.

The decision follows a constitutional petition filed by human rights lawyers led by Steven Kalali, who challenged the law for protecting women against certain offences without extending the same protection to men.

Kalali argued that the provision violated Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and prohibits discrimination based on sex.

He also challenged Section 42 of the Magistrates Courts Act, arguing that it compromised the right to a fair hearing by allowing magistrates to perform investigative and judicial roles in the same proceedings.

The court agreed that the provisions were inconsistent with constitutional protections.

Under Section 115(3) of the Penal Code Act, a person committed an offence if they deliberately used words, sounds, gestures or objects intended to insult the modesty of a woman or girl.

The provision also criminalised intruding upon a woman's privacy with the intention of insulting her modesty.

Anyone convicted under the provision faced a maximum prison sentence of one year.

The law specifically protected women and girls, leaving men outside its scope.

Kalali argued that this distinction amounted to discrimination because men could also suffer similar insults or violations of their dignity.

His petition also challenged Section 115(1), which dealt with indecent assault against women and girls and carried a maximum prison sentence of 14 years.

According to the petition, the different treatment of men and women under the law violated constitutional guarantees of equal protection.

The court's decision follows months of legal arguments over the provisions, which have featured in several criminal cases.

One of the most prominent involved Uganda Law Society president Isaac Kimaze Ssemakadde, who faced charges of insulting the modesty of Director of Public Prosecutions Jane Frances Abodo.

Two lawyers, Joshua Byamazima and Tonny Tumukunde, initiated a private prosecution against Ssemakadde in November 2024.

They accused him of making derogatory remarks about Abodo during a political symposium at the People's Front for Freedom offices along Katonga Road in Kampala on November 18, 2024.

The lawyers relied on Section 115(3) of the Penal Code Act to pursue the charges.

In January 2025, Buganda Road Chief Magistrate Ronald Kayizzi sanctioned the prosecution after finding that the complaint disclosed a case requiring Ssemakadde to answer.

Ssemakadde subsequently challenged the proceedings, arguing that the law was vague, too broad and violated his constitutional rights, including freedom of expression.

He also questioned the procedure used to initiate the private prosecution.

The Constitutional Court's latest decision raises questions about the future of criminal proceedings brought under the affected provisions, including cases that remain before magistrates' courts.

However, the ruling does not automatically establish the outcome of every pending case. Its application will depend on the court's formal orders and subsequent legal proceedings.

The court also declared Section 42 of the Magistrates Courts Act unconstitutional over the powers it gave magistrates during private prosecutions.

Under the provision, a private individual who believed an offence had been committed could lodge a complaint before a magistrate and seek criminal summons or an arrest warrant.

The magistrate could examine the complaint, determine whether sufficient grounds existed and prepare a charge against the accused.

The Constitutional Court found fault with the arrangement because it allowed magistrates to perform functions associated with investigations and prosecution before hearing the same cases.

The court directed the Attorney General to propose amendments allowing complainants or the Director of Public Prosecutions to prepare charges in private prosecutions.