Mandatory Anal Examinations In Kenya; Outdated and Horrific
A Kenyan Court ruled that the use of anal examinations is legal after two men accused of being homosexuals were subjected to the tests. The two men had brought a case to the High Court in Mombasa on Thursday, 16th June 2016 calling for anal examinations on alleged homosexuals to be declared unconstitutional.
“There was no other way evidence could have been obtained “ruled Mombasa Judge Matthew Emukule.
“I find no violation of human dignity, right to privacy and right to freedom of the petitioners”, said the judge.
In the case before the high court in Mombasa, Kenya, two men identified in the petition as C.O.I. and G.M.N., allege that doctors at Mombasa’s Coast General Provincial Hospital, in collaboration with law enforcement officials, violated their rights by subjecting them to forced anal examinations, HIV tests, and other blood tests in February 2015.
Judge Matthew Emukule at the High Court in Mombasa ruled on 16th June 2016 that there were sufficient grounds in Kenyan law for using the examinations to gather medical evidence of crimes including rape and sodomy, which are illegal in the country.
The petitioners have filed an appeal against the judgment.
The Law and Homosexuality.
In Kenya, where homosexuality is criminalized, men suspected of same-sex conduct are subject to non-consensual anal examinations intended to obtain physical evidence of homosexuality, a practice that is essentially medically and forensically worthless and has been dismissed as such in UN Documentation. Both the Independent Forensic Expert Group (IFEG) and the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims have condemned the practise.
Decreased anal sphincter pressure, which is what such exams are looking for, can be caused by a wide range of conditions from chronic constipation and irritable bowel syndrome to Parkinson’s disease. Therefore this form of examination cannot be used as a basis for proving Homosexual sexual relations.
The law provides in sections 162-165 of the Penal Code, that private, consensual homosexual sex between adults or attempts thereof, is punishable with up to 14 years in jail.
Forced anal exams violate the Convention against Torture, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Convention on Human and Peoples’ Rights, all of which are treaties that Kenya has ratified. Additionally, under international law and Kenya’s Sexual Offenses Act, any form of unwanted penetration during the examinations constitutes sexual assault and possibly rape.
The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture states that these exams amount to “torture or ill treatment ’’and may be considered a form of sexual assault and rape.
Furthermore, in April 2015, the High Court ruled that sexual orientation is constitutionally protected from discrimination and ordered the NGO Board to register the National Gay and Human Rights Commission.
Whether this law should be repealed remains a matter of public debate. It is important to note that laws were made by the societies they developed in, and not the other way around. Ours is not to berate the law as it stands, but to condemn the application of forced anal examination. It is horrific that such intrusion of another’s person still takes place under the guise of the law.
The very fact that multiple people were allowed to violate another human being in such a manner is unacceptable. The issue here is much larger than an instance of the “pro-gay agenda “as many have wrongfully labelled it. This was clearly a gross human rights violation.
Retrogressive ,homophobic practise
The fact that the Courts have decided to validate this violent practice is woefully unfortunate. It is retrogressive and is indeed a misguided step in the wrong direction. The violation of human dignity in this unfortunate scenario is not a matter of JUST sexuality .It is a matter of one thing all human beings are entitled to inherently by virtue of being human. Those are human rights.
Still, we have noted that the terror, fear and discrimination continues unabated even against the ruling in April, when the High Court was asked to cure the mischief in our laws, to stop pruning the branches of the poisonous tree and simply uproot it all together. The High Court being responsive ruled that sexual orientation is constitutionally protected from discrimination.
By Samantha Oswago, LAED-Kituo Cha Sheria