The Constitutional Court of Uganda has expanded legal protection against indecent assault to include men, ruling that provisions of the Penal Code Act that previously protected only women and girls are discriminatory and unconstitutional.A five-member panel led by Justice Cheborion Barishaki ruled that Sections 115(1) and (3) of the Penal Code Act violate constitutional principles of equality by excluding male victims who suffer similar forms of indecent assault.To address the inequality without removing existing protections, the court ordered that the phrase “any woman or girl” in the contested provisions be immediately replaced with “any person,” extending legal protection to all victims regardless of gender.The judgment followed consolidated constitutional petitions filed against the Attorney General by human rights lawyers Steven Kalali, Martins Kirya and Michael Aboneka.Delivering the ruling, Justice Barishaki, supported unanimously by Justices Oscar Kihika, Margaret Tibulya, Cornelia Kakooza Sabiiti and Musa Ssekaana, said the law must be consistent with constitutional guarantees of equality.Court of Appeal dismisses $3 million recovery case against Meddie Ssentongo in Bad Black money dispute“The undisputed evidence, including the Respondent’s own concession, is that men are equally capable of suffering the harm addressed by section 115(1) and (3) of the Penal Code Act,” Justice Barishaki ruled.“There is no rational, let alone constitutionally sufficient, basis for the Legislature to protect one gender from this form of injury while withholding equivalent protection from the other.”The Attorney General had argued that the provisions were designed as affirmative action to protect vulnerable women and girls. However, the court rejected the argument, noting that affirmative action should address historical inequalities rather than introduce new forms of discrimination by excluding other potential victims.The court also declared Section 115(3), which criminalises insulting a person’s modesty through words, sounds, gestures or objects, unconstitutionally vague.Justice Barishaki observed that the provision lacks clear definitions of prohibited conduct, making it difficult for citizens to determine what actions could attract criminal liability.“Citizens must be able to understand what conduct is prohibited. A penal provision of unlimited subjective reach offends the principle of legality,” he stated.Invoking Article 274 of the Constitution, the court modified the existing law pending legislative action and directed the Attorney General to present an amendment Bill to Parliament within 12 months. The proposed legislation must extend protection to all persons and clearly define the conduct prohibited under Section 115(3).The post Court rules men can also sue over unwanted ‘bad touches’ appeared first on MBU.