Equality before the law and the recognition of same-sex foreign marriages in Namibia: Digashu and another v GRN and others; Seiler-Lilles and another v GRN and others [2023] NASC 14
{"title":"Equality before the law and the recognition of same-sex foreign marriages in Namibia: Digashu and another v GRN and others; Seiler-Lilles and another v GRN and others [2023] NASC 14","authors":"J. D. Mujuzi","doi":"10.1177/13582291231199370","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Article 10(1) of the Constitution of Namibian provides for the right to equality before the law. Article 10(2) prohibits discrimination on several grounds. The Constitution of Namibia, unlike that of South Africa (1996), does not prohibit discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. However, unlike the Constitutions of some African countries such as Uganda, Seychelles, Kenya and Zimbabwe, the Constitution of Namibia does not prohibit same-sex marriages. Namibian law does not expressly prohibit same-sex marriages. However, in Immigration Selection Board v Frank (2001), the Namibian Supreme Court held that same-sex marriages were not allowed in Namibia. In Digashu and Another v GRN and Others; Seiler-Lilles and Another v GRN and Others, dated 16 May 2023, the Supreme Court, by majority, invoked Article 10(1) and common law to overrule its decision in Immigration Selection Board v Frank and to hold that Namibian law should recognise same-sex marriages entered into abroad. However, the court declined to express its opinion on whether discrimination on the ground of sexual-orientation is prohibited in Namibia. In this note, the author argues, inter alia, that the list of grounds under Article 10(2) is closed and that explains why the court did not rule that the appellants had been discriminated against based on their sexual orientation; it was unlikely for the government to succeed had it relied on the argument of public policy as the basis for its refusal to recognise foreign same-sex marriages; and that the court unconsciously developed common law on the issue of foreign marriages.","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291231199370","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Article 10(1) of the Constitution of Namibian provides for the right to equality before the law. Article 10(2) prohibits discrimination on several grounds. The Constitution of Namibia, unlike that of South Africa (1996), does not prohibit discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. However, unlike the Constitutions of some African countries such as Uganda, Seychelles, Kenya and Zimbabwe, the Constitution of Namibia does not prohibit same-sex marriages. Namibian law does not expressly prohibit same-sex marriages. However, in Immigration Selection Board v Frank (2001), the Namibian Supreme Court held that same-sex marriages were not allowed in Namibia. In Digashu and Another v GRN and Others; Seiler-Lilles and Another v GRN and Others, dated 16 May 2023, the Supreme Court, by majority, invoked Article 10(1) and common law to overrule its decision in Immigration Selection Board v Frank and to hold that Namibian law should recognise same-sex marriages entered into abroad. However, the court declined to express its opinion on whether discrimination on the ground of sexual-orientation is prohibited in Namibia. In this note, the author argues, inter alia, that the list of grounds under Article 10(2) is closed and that explains why the court did not rule that the appellants had been discriminated against based on their sexual orientation; it was unlikely for the government to succeed had it relied on the argument of public policy as the basis for its refusal to recognise foreign same-sex marriages; and that the court unconsciously developed common law on the issue of foreign marriages.
《纳米比亚宪法》第10(1)条规定法律面前人人平等的权利。第10(2)条禁止基于若干理由的歧视。纳米比亚宪法与南非宪法(1996年)不同,不禁止基于性取向的歧视。然而,与乌干达、塞舌尔、肯尼亚和津巴布韦等一些非洲国家的宪法不同,纳米比亚的宪法并不禁止同性婚姻。纳米比亚法律并没有明文禁止同性婚姻。然而,在移民选拔委员会诉弗兰克案(2001年)中,纳米比亚最高法院裁定,纳米比亚不允许同性婚姻。《迪加舒和另一个人》vs《GRN和其他人》在2023年5月16日的Seiler-Lilles and Another v GRN and Others案中,最高法院以多数票援引第10条第1款和普通法,推翻了其在移民选拔委员会诉Frank案中的决定,并认为纳米比亚法律应承认在国外缔结的同性婚姻。然而,法院拒绝就纳米比亚是否禁止基于性取向的歧视发表意见。在这份说明中,发件人除其他外认为,第10条第(2)款规定的理由清单已经结束,这解释了为什么法院没有裁定上诉人因其性取向而受到歧视;如果政府依靠公共政策作为拒绝承认外国同性婚姻的依据,那么它就不太可能成功;法院在不知不觉中发展了关于外国婚姻问题的普通法。