Much of the world rejoiced on Friday August 1 when Uganda’s Constitutional Court declared a brutal anti-homosexuality law invalid. The law, since its passage in February this year, had received international criticism at the hands of Western states and donors, with several countries cutting off or reviewing their aid packages to the country.

While headlines such as “Uganda’s Constitutional Court Strikes Down Hideous Anti-Gay Law” may cause the freedom loving world to celebrate Friday’s ruling, the full picture is more murky and may not include progress on LGBT rights but rather a technical issue and foreign pressure combining to rescind the legislation or perhaps merely delay the law’s enactment.

Presiding Judge Steven Kavuma declared the harsh law, which prescribed punishments of up to life imprisonment for “aggravated homosexuality,” “null and void” on Friday August 1. Rather than reaching the merits of the law, according to Judge Kavuma, at the passage of the law the parliament had failed to abide by the constitutional requirement of a 1/3 quorum of members.

Despite elation and declarations to the contrary, this does not fully de-criminalize homosexuality in Uganda. Under previously passed legislation homosexuality is still criminal, simply with lesser punishments.

Judicial Interference

While Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni assured the AFP that the decision had nothing to do with diplomatic pressure, there are some doubts.

Upon the law’s passage a number of Western states reacted by reviewing aid policies towards Uganda. Several countries would eventually strip the country of all foreign aid, which, in 2012 (the last year for which data is available), relied on foreign aid for more than 8 percent of its GDP.

The United States took concrete but less extreme steps than ending aid, with a senior administration official telling Reuters that ”…the idea is to send a signal to perpetrators and would-be perpetrators that we are indeed monitoring, that we are indeed prepared to take measures, and that there are consequences.”

One of the bill’s most vocal supporters, extremist anti-Gay Pastor Martin Ssempa immediately claimed the actions of the Constitutional Court were an effort to polish the reputation of the East African state in the run-up to the US-Africa Leaders Summit this week in Washington. Ssempa went as far as calling on the Ugandan Parliament to investigate the independence of the judiciary.

Despite his history of fiery, abrasive and frequently incoherent rhetoric, Ssempa may have a point when it comes to the country’s judicial independence.

In 2011, according to international legal affairs site Jurist, at a conference of Southern African Chief Justices, former Chief Justice Benjamin Odoki decried government interference in judicial affairs across the continent, including his home country.

This speech followed several incidents of political interference in constitutional court affairs, including a 2006 episode that saw the Constitutional Court surrounded by security agents after supporters an opposition politician were freed on bail. The scene took a violent turn, with the suspects and their lawyer beaten by the security agents.

While such extreme occurrences seem to have died down, the trend against judicial independence in Museveni’s Uganda has continued and the World Economic Forum ranked Uganda in the bottom third of countries in Judicial Independence for 2013-14.

The Bad and The Ugly

While the US-Africa Leaders Summit was an exceptional opportunity for the Obama administration to advocate for its foreign policy goals, including its stated goal of advancing LGBT rights, which former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (while serving in her administration position) called “one of the remaining human rights challenges of our time,” the particular spotlight dedicated to the African continent could prove to be a mixed blessing.

If the Court’s decision is, in fact, a product of governmental interference, the decision to rule the law unconstitutional based on a lack of quorum leaves the country the opportunity to pass a similar law once the international spotlight is off.

Had the Court determined the law was unconstitutional on its merits, precedent would have been set, making this (at least in theory in a common law jurisdiction like Uganda) more difficult.

For their part, the law’s proponents have wasted no time attempting to bring back the harsh punishments for homosexuality. Abdu Latif Ssebaggala, a parliamentarian, told Reuters that he was collecting signatures and “mobilizing members to pledge their support for re-introduction of this bill when the House comes back from recess (in about two weeks’ time).”

Museveni is yet to comment on the bill’s potential reintroduction, though he is busy in Washington at the Summit.

Whether the determination that of the law’s constitutionality was driven by a political desire to appease potential donors and investors at the US-Africa Leaders Summit or a fealty to the rule of law, the process is not complete.

Homosexuality is criminalized in 37 countries across the African continent, including Uganda, despite the ruling against harsher punishments. Proponents clearly intend to bring the law once again to Parliament, undoubtedly this time with the constitutionally mandated quorum.

While it is easy to look at this ruling as a victory for freedom and human rights, it is clearly just one chapter in what will be a long book for Uganda’s LGBT community. Continued pressure and attention from the international community may be the only thing that can make sure that book has a happy ending.

Andrew Friedman is a human rights attorney and freelance consultant who works and writes on legal reform and constitutional law with an emphasis on Africa. He can be reached via email at afriedm2@gmail.com or via twitter @AndrewBFriedman.