When, on August 1, the country’s Constitutional Court ruled that its law punishing “aggravated homosexuality” with life imprisonment was unconstitutional, the world rejoiced. But the fight against Uganda’s draconian Anti-Homosexuality Act may not be over. In fact, it may be starting all over again.

As we reported here at AFKInsider immediately upon the ruling, this was not necessarily permanent. The Constitutional Court ruled that the law was null and void not based on substance, but rather based on a constitutional requirement that all laws be passed with a minimum quorum of 1/3 of the members of parliament present, which was not met.

This procedural ruling, rather than one based on the law’s substance, left the door open to a reintroduction of a similar bill with the parliamentary quorum present for a vote.

In addition to the potential for a reintroduction, the Constitutional Court, unlike most international judicial systems, is not the final arbiter of constitutional questions. The decision can still be appealed to the country’s Supreme Court.

It appears that the law’s opponents worst nightmare is coming to fruition, as the law’s supporters may both reintroduce the bill and appeal its annulment to the Supreme Court.

Smoke and Mirrors

According to the Wall Street Journal, President Yoweri Museveni directed his attorney general to not appeal the judgment. The Chief Whip of Museveni’s National Resistance Movement party, Justine Lumumba, stated that the AG complied with the directive to “drop the intention to appeal to the Supreme Court.”

This is simply untrue, according to Adrian Jjuuko, Executive Director of the Human Rights Awareness and Promotion Forum, a Ugandan civil and human rights organization. The Attorney General’s office is yet to withdraw the Notice of Appeal, a necessary step in dropping the appeal, raising fears that despite reports and rhetoric to the contrary, the opinion will be appealed..

“The Petitioners’ lawyers have never been served with a withdrawal notice and neither is there a withdrawal letter on the file at the Registry. So this implies that the Attorney General may go on with the Appeal,” according to Jjuuko. Nicholas Opiyo, lawyer for the petitioners, confirmed Jjuuko’s comments when we spoke to him via twitter.

Simply put, as of right now, the petitioners have received no official word that the appeal has been dropped. Even if the appeal is dropped, there was a significant possibility that a similar bill will be reintroduced and gain traction in the country’s parliament.

And as feared, last week the Ugandan Parliament officially began the process for the bill’s re-introduction.

According to the Ugandan Daily Monitor, two members, David Bahati and Benson Obua Ogwal, officially wrote the body asking that a date be set aside for re-tabling of the bill. While the date is yet to be known, the two were granted leave from Parliament to allow them time to prepare the bill. Bahati was one of the bill’s original sponsors in 2009.

Deputy Speaker Jacob Oulanyah indicated, in the same session where informed the press that the two were granted leave to prepare the bill, that 254 members of parliament registered their support. This is well above the necessary thresholds for passage (simple majority) and quorum (one third present and voting) in the 376 member body.

President Museveni seems to be conflicted on both the original law and its reintroduction. While initially he was adamant in his support, often in the face of tremendous western opposition, this defiance has softened in the face of international political realities.

At the signing of the original bill in February of 2014, Museveni was vehement in his intolerance of homosexuals, saying that he believed homosexuals were “wrong” and that his “original thesis that there may be people who are born homosexual has been disproved by science.”

Economic repercussions

Only after signing the bill was Museveni able to fully realize the effect it would have on international relations. In a meeting with members of parliament after the Constitutional Court struck down the law, he acknowledged that he had gone through “a difficult time,” according to the Ugandan Observer newspaper.

One MP told the newspaper that the President “said we risked having our exports rejected on the American market, which would have adverse effects on our revenues. And, besides that, some investors from the US like the apparel factory at Bugolobi [which benefits from duty-free access to US markets] were also threatening to wind up their operations in Uganda.”

Additionally, a group of 10 senators wrote a letter to American President Barack Obama encouraging him to remove Uganda (and Nigeria) from the list of states receiving preferred benefits under the African Growth and Opportunity Act if the mistreatment of homosexuals continues.

For these reasons, Museveni has played a much smaller public role in the bill since February. Acknowledging that it is a “delicate situation,” he advised members of parliament to tread lightly and ensure that any such law does not criminalize consensual adult homosexual relationships.

This is a marked change in tone from his initial defiance and support of the previous bill.

For now, the future of anti-homosexuality legislation in Uganda remains unclear. Homosexual relationships are currently outlawed based on old legislation, but the particularly brutal Anti-Homosexuality Act was struck down on procedural grounds by the country’s Constitutional Court.

The country’s Attorney General, despite reports and rhetoric to the contrary, may still appeal the decision and members of parliament appear poised to reintroduce such legislation.

In short, even after the joy of the constitutional court decision, the fight for Ugandan homosexual community is far from over.

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.