top of page




The recent decision by the World Bank to suspend new loans to Uganda in light of its controversial Anti-Homosexuality Act has sparked a global debate on the role of international financial institutions as guardians of human rights. While the World Bank contends that the Ugandan law contradicts its values, critics argue that the Bank's stance is inconsistent, given its continued financial support for other nations with similarly repressive laws. This critical review examines the World Bank's response, questions the consistency of its approach to LGBTQ rights, and explores the broader implications for the intersection of international finance and human rights.




On May 29, President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda signed into law one of the world's most stringent anti-LGBTQ legislations, eliciting both domestic support and widespread condemnation from international rights activists. This legislation, known as the Anti-Homosexuality Act 2023, not only restricts LGBTQ rights but introduces severe penalties for various homosexual acts, including life imprisonment for consensual same-sex acts and the death penalty for what is termed "aggravated homosexuality." This Act has positioned Uganda as one of 62 countries in Africa with laws criminalizing same-sex activity, marking a significant challenge to human rights principles.


a.     Historical Context of Anti-LGBTQ Legislation in Uganda


The roots of Uganda's anti-LGBTQ stance can be traced back to the colonial period when British colonial rule introduced anti-sodomy provisions in the Penal Code. Although the UK decriminalized same-sex acts in 1967, many former colonies, including Uganda, did not inherit these legal reforms. Out of the 17 African nations colonized by Britain with anti-LGBTQ laws, only three have subsequently repealed them. Uganda's journey includes a notorious 2009 bill, widely known as the "Kill the Gays" bill, advocating for the execution of homosexuals, though it faced global condemnation and was not enacted in its original form. In 2014, a less stringent anti-LGBTQ law was struck down by a Ugandan court amid international pressure.


b.    Intent Behind the Act: Unravelling Misplaced Notions


The Anti- Homosexuality act 2023 aims to protect the traditional family structure by addressing perceived threats, both internal and external, that purportedly endanger heterosexual family units. However, research suggests that same-sex relationships have no detrimental impact on heterosexual families. Numerous studies, including a comprehensive analysis published in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management in 2021, challenges the idea that legal recognition of same-sex couples adversely affects family formation.


The legislation disputes the innate and unchangeable nature of homosexual attraction. While the origins of sexual orientation remain multifaceted and not conclusively determined, the scientific and professional consensus, as outlined by the Academy of Science of South Africa in 2015, recognizes sexual orientation as generally innate and immutable for most individuals. Legal precedents, such as Commonwealth v. Gill, affirms that feelings shaping adult sexual orientation emerge early in childhood, underscoring the limited control individuals have over their sexual orientation.


The Act also claims to protect children and youth vulnerable to sexual abuse due to homosexuality, a notion contradicted by over 30 years of research demonstrating that children raised by LGBTQ parents exhibit similar well-being to those raised by heterosexual parents. Academic studies, such as one published in Elsevier's book series on Advances in Child Development and Behaviour in 2022, affirm that there is no significant difference in the outcomes of children raised by gay or lesbian parents.


c.     Stringency of the Legislation: Implications and Concerns


The Anti-Homosexuality Act 2023 significantly expands the severity of punishments for LGBTQ individuals in Uganda. While homosexuality was already illegal and punishable by life imprisonment under colonial-era laws, the new legislation introduces the death penalty for "aggravated homosexuality," including the transmission of terminal illnesses through same-sex acts or engaging in same-sex relations with a person with a disability. Such draconian measures not only contribute to social stigmatization but also expose LGBTQ individuals to heightened risks of violence and human rights violations.


Criminalizing sexual orientation, particularly through the imposition of the death penalty, raises fundamental human rights concerns, violating rights such as freedom of expression, thought, conscience, religion, peaceful assembly, privacy, the right to the highest attainable standard of health, and the right to life. This goes against the global trend towards a moratorium on the death penalty, as evident in the UN General Assembly's resolution in December 2007 calling for a worldwide halt to executions.


The legislation also targets the "promotion of homosexuality," making it illegal to publish, fund, or offer premises for activities related to LGBTQ rights. Such provisions have the potential to unjustifiably limit freedom of expression within the context of legitimate human rights advocacy, impacting civil society actors, including those working on HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment.


d.    Africa's Varied Stance on LGBTQ Rights


Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Act places it among the 32 African countries that ban same-sex relationships. In Africa, four countries impose the death penalty for same-sex activities, while eight enforce imprisonment of ten years or more. However, there are divergent attitudes across the continent. For example, South Africa stands as the only African nation where LGBTQ couples enjoy legal privileges such as marriage, civil unions, and adoption. The Afrobarometer survey reveals that Uganda ranks at the bottom of African countries in terms of accepting sexual diversity, with only 25% expressing a welcoming or indifferent stance, while 73% express dislike or strong dislike.


In contrast, 22 African countries legally accept being gay, with 10 actively legalizing same-sex activity and 12 never considering it a criminal offense. Recent legalizations, such as in Angola in 2021, reflect a slow but progressive shift in attitudes. Despite these developments, the prevailing intolerance in Uganda, as evidenced by the Afrobarometer survey, underscores the urgent need for a re-evaluation of societal attitudes and legal frameworks.


e.     Global Condemnation


The enactment of Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Act has triggered widespread condemnation from international entities, including US President Joe Biden, the European Union, the United Kingdom, UNAIDS, the Global Fund, and multinational companies like Google and Microsoft. The punitive response, including reductions in aid and investment, reflects the global consensus that such legislation constitutes a tragic violation of universal human rights.


In response to the legislation, a group of academics and activists has petitioned the constitutional court, seeking an injunction to prevent the Act's implementation. It is imperative for international pressure, diplomatic efforts, and support for LGBTQ rights organizations to be sustained to push for the repeal or amendment of this law. Additionally, Uganda's parliament must re-evaluate laws criminalizing homosexuality, prioritizing the fundamental human rights of every Ugandan over the stigmatization of a particular group. As Uganda grapples with the aftermath of this legislation, the global community must remain vigilant in advocating for human rights, equality, and a more inclusive society.




The World Bank's decision to halt new lending to Uganda represents a significant move in response to the country's Anti-Homosexuality Act. The Bank justifies its decision by asserting that the Ugandan law fundamentally contradicts its values, emphasizing a commitment to eradicating poverty inclusively, irrespective of race, gender, or sexuality.


This response follows a visit by a World Bank team to Uganda shortly after the law's enactment, which identified the need for additional measures to align projects with the Bank's environmental and social standards. The statement from the World Bank signals a commitment to ensuring that its funds are utilized in a manner consistent with its core principles, raising questions about the broader application of such scrutiny across its portfolio.


a.     The Inconsistency of the World Bank on Homosexuality


While the World Bank takes a principled stand against Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Act, critics argue that the institution's stance lacks consistency when examined in the context of its relationships with other nations that enforce similar or even harsher laws against homosexuality. Uganda is one of 62 countries with laws criminalizing homosexuality, and more than half of these nations prescribe jail terms of at least ten years for engaging in homosexual acts.


Notably, countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Brunei, Mauritania, and Nigeria, among others, have laws that not only criminalize homosexuality but also prescribe severe penalties, including the death penalty. Despite this, the World Bank maintains its development partnerships with these nations, raising questions about the criteria used to assess a country's adherence to human rights principles.


The case of Saudi Arabia is particularly striking, as the World Bank considers the kingdom a "key development partner" despite its execution of individuals based on their sexual orientation. Similarly, Brunei enacted laws in 2019 that prescribe stoning to death for both adultery and gay sex. Nevertheless, the World Bank expresses readiness to support the country in its development challenges, revealing a seeming inconsistency in its approach to different nations with similar human rights violations.


b.    Implications and Critique of the World Bank's Stand


The World Bank's decision to suspend new loans to Uganda has sparked a broader discussion about the role of international financial institutions in upholding human rights. Critics argue that the Bank's selective response to Uganda's anti-LGBTQ law raises questions about its commitment to a uniform standard across its diverse portfolio of partner nations.


The inconsistency in the World Bank's approach to LGBTQ rights not only undermines its moral authority but also calls into question the effectiveness of its efforts to promote inclusivity and non-discrimination. By continuing financial relationships with countries that impose harsh penalties, including the death penalty, for homosexuality, the World Bank risks being perceived as prioritizing economic interests over human rights.


Moreover, the accusation of hypocrisy from Uganda's State Minister for Foreign Affairs, Okello Oryem, highlights the challenges of maintaining a principled stance in the complex landscape of international relations. Oryem's assertion that the World Bank applies pressure selectively, influenced by geopolitical considerations, invites scrutiny into the Bank's decision-making processes and the potential influence of external factors on its actions.


c.     Reimagining the World Bank's Role in Human Rights Advocacy


The World Bank's response to Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Act presents an opportunity for a broader conversation on redefining the role of international financial institutions in human rights advocacy. As global entities with significant economic influence, these institutions must grapple with the ethical dilemma of balancing financial support with the promotion of fundamental human rights.


Reimagining the World Bank's role involves developing a transparent and consistent framework for evaluating a country's adherence to human rights principles. This framework should consider not only legal frameworks but also the implementation and enforcement of laws to ensure a comprehensive assessment of a nation's commitment to inclusivity and non-discrimination.


Additionally, the World Bank could leverage its influence to engage in constructive dialogue with partner countries, encouraging them to align their legal frameworks with international human rights standards. This proactive approach would reflect a commitment to fostering positive change rather than resorting to punitive measures after laws have been enacted.



Recently, the World Bank made headlines by announcing the suspension of new lending to Uganda in response to the passage of the Anti-Homosexuality Act. The bank stated that the law "fundamentally contradicts our values." President Yoweri Museveni responded on social media, accusing the bank of attempting to coerce Uganda into abandoning its "faith, culture, principles, and sovereignty" through financial pressure, boldly asserting that the country "will develop with or without loans."


While the World Bank's decision may have minimal impact on the political elite responsible for the controversial bill, it is ordinary Ugandans, especially the queer community the bank seeks to defend, who are likely to bear the brunt of the consequences. The World Bank stands as Uganda's largest lender, with 34.5% of the country's public debt owed to the institution by the end of the 2021/22 financial year.


As of December 2022, the World Bank, through its International Development Association (IDA), had allocated $5.4 billion in loans and grants for Uganda. These funds supported various projects, ranging from smallholder farmer assistance to women entrepreneurs, refugee support, infrastructure development, and healthcare initiatives, including HIV/AIDS care and maternal health services.


While existing projects may continue, the suspension of new financing will undoubtedly impact Uganda's struggling economy, already grappling with the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic implications of the war in Ukraine. The average Ugandan, including those in the LGBTIQ community and other vulnerable groups, may face exacerbated challenges due to this lending cut.




The World Bank's move to penalize Uganda for its homophobic legislation may seem like a strategic response in the fight against legalizing the death of queer Ugandans. However, it raises concerns about addressing the root cause – the financial and ideological influence of Western anti-rights groups. The decision may unintentionally perpetuate a white supremacist, Western-centric ideology, supporting sanctions that harm those influenced by Global North anti-rights actors in the Global South.


While the World Bank's decision has garnered support from international civil society organizations, including those in Uganda, it falls short of addressing the deeper issue of Western anti-rights groups spreading hate in Africa. By focusing solely on the outcome – legalized homophobia in Uganda – without confronting the underlying causes, the World Bank's action may inadvertently align with an ideology that, while condemning hate, enforces measures that contribute to the suffering of those affected by its influences in the Global South. It is imperative to seek solutions that genuinely challenge the roots of homophobia and promote a more inclusive and equitable society.




The recent announcement by the World Bank to freeze new loans to Uganda due to the country's anti-LGBTIQ+ law might be seen by some as a positive step toward a more progressive stance on human rights issues. However, caution is warranted when assessing its significance, considering the historical context and the Bank's operational framework.


The World Bank, operating for over 75 years with 189 member states, is mandated to fund development projects in states with annual per capita incomes below about US$12,535. Its Articles of Agreement strictly prohibit decisions based on political grounds, emphasizing considerations of economy and efficiency over political or non-economic influences.


Despite these seemingly clear directives, the reality is more nuanced. The division of responsibilities between political and economic decisions is blurred, with the Board of Executive Directors, representing member states, inevitably factoring in political implications. The attempt to exclude political considerations, including human rights, from operations has proven futile.


A historical example involves the Bank's decision in the 1960s to lend to Portugal and South Africa for the Cahora Basa dam in Mozambique despite UN efforts to impose sanctions due to colonial and apartheid policies. The Bank's decision, ostensibly based on technical merits, did not result in further loans to South Africa until it transitioned to a democratic state.


At the transaction level, the Bank funds projects with significant social and environmental impacts, forcing consideration of political, including human rights, implications. Disagreements arise over criteria for consent, particularly when dealing with vulnerable groups such as women, youth, LGBTIQ+, or disabled people. The challenge lies in ensuring principled and predictable decision-making, holding the Bank accountable for its choices.




The World Bank's suspension of loans to Uganda amid the Anti-Homosexuality Act unveils a multifaceted landscape where economic decisions intersect with human rights. Uganda's legislation, rooted in historical and international influences, prompts reflection on the World Bank's role.


The inconsistent application of human rights scrutiny across partner nations questions the Bank's moral authority. Uganda's reaction underscores the geopolitical complexities influencing international financial decisions, emphasizing sovereignty concerns over human rights.


While the World Bank's stance on LGBTQ+ rights merits applause, its selective response prompts scrutiny. The broader conversation extends beyond punitive measures, urging a recalibration of the Bank's role. A nuanced approach involves acknowledging historical complexities, fostering dialogue, supporting local initiatives, and leveraging economic influence for enduring societal change.


Ultimately, the World Bank's pivotal role in human rights advocacy necessitates transcending binary narratives. It necessitates a redefined approach that acknowledges the intricate dynamics of global development, intertwining economic decisions with the pursuit of inclusivity, tolerance, and respect.

Author: Himanshu

Institution: National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi

Course: B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)

Year of Study: 4th-Year

Co-Author: Anjali Jeena


Year of Study- 4th Year

Course- B.A. LL.B.


bottom of page