Uganda’s Constitutional Court has upheld the legality of polygamous marriage, ruling that the practice does not contravene constitutional rights to equality, dignity or freedom from inhuman treatment.
The decision, made on documents alone and issued on 10 July in Women’s Probono Initiative v Attorney General, dismissed a public interest petition brought by the Women’s Probono Initiative (WPI), a non-profit Kampala-based legal advocacy organisation.
The unanimous judgment, delivered by Justice Margaret Tibulya on behalf of a five-judge panel, held that polygamous marriage is expressly recognised under Ugandan law and is constitutionally protected as a form of religious and cultural expression. The ruling confirmed that the Customary Marriage (Registration) Act and the Marriage and Divorce of Mohammedans Act provide for and regulate polygamous unions, and that their continued application does not violate the Constitution.
The petitioners had argued that polygamy was inherently discriminatory and degrading to women, and that it contributed to socioeconomic harms including emotional distress, unequal treatment in property distribution, and an increased risk of HIV transmission. The court rejected these claims, finding that the alleged harms were not supported by sufficient evidence and did not demonstrate that the marital structure itself constituted a violation of constitutional rights.
Authoring the court’s details in a 46-page judgment, Justice Tibulya wrote that polygamous and monogamous marriages are governed by distinct legal regimes and are therefore “intrinsically unequal”. As such, they could not be compared for the purposes of applying Article 21 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination. The court held that equality does not require identical treatment of dissimilar legal constructs and that recognising this distinction does not amount to unconstitutional discrimination.
The court also rejected the contention that polygamous marriage constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 24 of the Constitution, holding that any such harms must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, such as in instances of forced or coercive marriages, which are already criminalised under existing law.
On the question of whether polygamy undermines the constitutional guarantee of women’s dignity and equality, the court found that the Constitution balances these values with other entrenched rights, including freedom of religion and culture under Article 29. Justice Tibulya observed that it is not for the court to impose a monolithic view of marriage where the law provides for multiple, coexisting forms of marital union.
The petition also cited Uganda’s obligations under international human rights instruments, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, as amended by the Maputo Protocol.
However, the court held that these obligations did not override domestic constitutional protections for religious and customary practices unless they had been directly incorporated into national law. The judge accepted that “there can be no doubt that involuntary polygamy aligns with human rights violations including torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” but, drawing the distinction between forced and consensual arrangements, added that that definition does not apply “where all parties are consenting adults”.
Consequently, all six grounds of the petition were dismissed and the court declined to grant any of the declarations or remedies sought. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
The ruling represents a significant reaffirmation of Uganda’s pluralistic legal system, which recognises multiple forms of marriage depending on the parties’ religious or customary background. It follows an earlier petition brought in 2010 by the organisation MIFUMI, which had also challenged the legality of polygamy but was dismissed on procedural grounds. However, it does not appear that WPI is taking the decision lying down.
In a strongly worded online statement, the group wrote: “This ruling exacerbates the vulnerabilities of women within such arrangements without providing adequate safeguards to ensure their equality and dignity, and moves us further away from compliance with our international obligations. It also fails to address the systemic inequalities that leave women in polygamous unions vulnerable.”
The statement continued: “We at the WPI refuse to accept this setback to women’s rights in Uganda. We intend to swiftly appeal this ruling to the Supreme Court of Uganda as we are determined to fight for justice.”
Discussion about this post