Public Morality and Constitutionalism in Restricting LGBTQ+ Rights: A Legal Analysis of Nigeria, Ghana, and Uganda

Abstract

Civil liberties are the cornerstone of modern democracies, yet many African nations continue to impose legislative restrictions on sexual freedoms under the guise of public morality. Nigeria, Ghana, and Uganda have enacted stringent anti-LGBTQ+ laws, often justified by appeals to sovereignty, tradition, and moral conservatism. This study critically examines the legal and constitutional legitimacy of such restrictions, exploring their consistency with international human rights frameworks. Employing a normative legal research method based on primary and secondary legal sources, this paper analyzes statutory provisions, judicial precedents, and constitutional interpretations in the three countries. Findings reveal that the reliance on public morality as a justification for derogating LGBTQ+ rights lacks a solid constitutional foundation and conflicts with internationally recognized human rights standards. The case of RTIER v FRN in Nigeria highlights a judicial shift towards recognizing sexual minorities' rights, offering a model for Ghana and Uganda. Furthermore, comparative insights from South Africa and India demonstrate how progressive constitutional interpretations can reconcile local moral values with universal human rights principles. The study concludes that while cultural relativism remains influential, constitutional safeguards and judicial activism play a crucial role in upholding fundamental human rights. It advocates for legal reforms that balance moral considerations with constitutional imperatives, ensuring equal protection for all citizens, irrespective of sexual orientation.