Homosexuality – gayism and lesbianism – that should have in conventional terms been a private issue is now in the public domain. Ideally, what should be of private issue between two individuals should not be of concern to anyone. It is jovially said that when a couple is having their indooring, they don’t invite anyone. It is when they are having their outdooring that friends and close associates are warmly invited. The logic of not inviting any friend for the indooring is because what goes on in the private should be of concern to only the individuals involved. So, homosexuality, sexual relations between individuals of the same sex, should not be discussed in pessimistic terms, since, as human rights apologists and defenders of homosexual practice argue, sexual orientation is biological and also a matter of choice. Under the hubris of the law, individuals should have the right to engage in any sexual practice they feel inclined to, once that does not affect any third party. To frame this argument in a question form: why should the sexual practice of two consenting adults be of concern to anyone? I believe that we should all be interested in assiduously finding answer/s to this question. A good response to this question will determine the trend the discourse on homosexuality will take. It will also influence the call to either liberalise our laws on so-called unnatural sex or decriminalize the practice all together. It is in light of this that I am calling for a peep into African culture to understand the discourse on homosexuality. In an attempt to bridge the gap between African culture and the call for the rights of homosexuals, I have considerably sought to ask the following question: Whose right should be held paramount: the right of the homosexual or the community? When the rights of an individual clash with the collective interest of the community, what should be done? Who determines human rights: the individual or the community? In what way does the conceptualisation of the human being in Africa influence the debate on homosexuality? What are the consequences of criminalising homosexual relations? Why is the West forcing homosexuality down the throat of Africans in a willy-nilly manner?
The on-going trial of the alleged born-a-gay doctor, Dr. Sulley Ali-Gabass, has rekindled the discourse on homosexuality which showed up strongly in 2003, and 2006, when some homosexuals entertained holding a conference on the practice in Ghana. Fortunately, the conference was not given the green light by the erstwhile NPP government. Some sympathisers of Dr. Ali-Gabass, who is also a gynaecologist, have called for a trial of the doctor not based on homosexual accusation, but on the case of sodomising a minor. In other words, his trial should not be based on his so-called sexual orientation. Admittedly, contrary to pedestrian knowledge, homosexuality is not foreign to Africans. It is not part of the imported cultures. Homosexual practice had existed in many African societies prior to colonialism. In fact, my interactions with colleagues from Tanzania, South Africa, Burundi, and Ethiopia, have convinced me that homosexuality is not a novelty in Africa. I, therefore, vehemently disagree with some anti-homosexual campaigners who try to portray a golden image of Africa and also present African culture as sacrosanct and flawless. The inanity and illogicality of this argument is that those who condemn homosexuality as totally foreign to Africans do deliberately or ignorantly gloss over some weird sexual practices that obtained in some African societies. Well, there is always the tendency on the part of any society to attribute sexual anomalies to external influence. If homosexuality is not entirely foreign Africans, then what is the point of contention of some anti-homosexual campaigners? What is providing them with the impetus to launch a crusade against homosexuality?
What is energising anti-homosexual campaigners to declare a zero tolerance for homosexuality is the attempt by the West to provide legitimacy to a practice that was closely associated with the metaphysical world. Yes, homosexuality has a long history in Africa, but the practice was the exception rather than the norm. It was considered a deviant sexual behaviour, an anomaly and aberration, and individuals who were engaged in it were ridiculed and mocked at. In some societies too, the practice was ritualised for the attainment of cultic attention. There was no attempt on the part of society to publicise and socially normalise the practice. Persons, who were homosexuals, were always suspects – they were considered to be possessed by witchcraft and other malevolent spirits. This was because the practice of homosexuality was considered inhuman and inconsistent with common-sense. Homosexuality was associated with witchcraft because in the psyche of Africans, it is only a person, possessed by witchcraft, who would do such an anomaly. Indeed, in the West, until the 1973, homosexuality was considered a sexual aberration and homosexuals were to be assisted psychologically. Thus, homosexuality was categorised alongside paedophiliac and kleptomaniac as aberrations that needed medical and psychological attention.
Now, the most important question, which forms the linchpin of this article, and which will also be of interest to those of us who belong to the Journalist for Human Rights is: what position should be assumed when the rights of the individual clash with society’s interest? In other words, what should be the way out when the rights of an individual clash with the collective interest of a group? First, we should answer this question in light of the conceptualisation of the human being in Africa. In Africa, the human being is first a biological being. But being a biological being does not make one a human being. A biological being is simply man (in the generic sense) in his raw state: attributes he shares with animals. That is why in virtually every African society, conscientious effort is made on the part of the society to transition the biological being from the state of nature to a social being. Among the Akan of Ghana, for example, a child is called a thing, or called by his kra din (soul’s name), until the eighth day that he is given a name to identify him with the larger society. Thus, the giving of the name makes the child a legal entity, who enjoys some rights and also performs some responsibilities. Thus, the right of the individual is indissolubly connected to the sociality of the individual. It is the giving of the name that personalises the child. Thus, it is the sociality of the individual that is of importance to the society. Thus, the individual after naming becomes a social being or a communal being, who finds meaning in life by belonging to a community of other beings. The individual is never individual qua individual. He (in a generic sense) is a communal being, who exists because of the existence of other beings. This philosophy of the sociality of the individual is explicitly expressed in the Ubuntu philosophy, which is captured by John Mbiti as, “I am because we are, and since we are therefore I am.” This well placed expression is also couched in the Akan saying: Nnipa hia moa to wit, “A human being needs help.” Isolationism was frowned upon.
Thus, based on the understanding of the human being, the rights of the individual are expressed in light of the individual’s connection to other human beings. And since the existence of the individual is predicated on the existence of the larger society, the right of the individual does not take precedence over the rights of the larger community. In most African societies, the rights of the community have always been prioritised over the rights of individuals. So, while individuals have rights, their rights are inextricably subjected to the bigger rights of the community. I am yet to read in any published material where the rights of the larger community were sacrificed at the expense of the rights of the individual. Instead, African history is replete with instances where the rights of individuals were sacrificed at the expense of the bigger society. The killing of Tweneboa Koduah and Agya Ahor (out of which we got Ahorba festival) for the establishment of a kingdom and reversal of an epidemic respectively are examples from the Akan society to adduce evidence to the fact that sometimes the rights of individuals are destroyed for constructive purposes. Thus, upon the demands of the deities and ancestors, the rights of individuals could be sacrificed for the collective good of the community. Indeed, a research into the foundation of my societies in Africa will bring to the fore that human lives had to be destroyed for the establishment of such societies. Thus, the rights of homosexuals are largely subservient to the rights of the larger Ghanaian community. The rights of a few individuals, claiming to have a perverted sexual orientation, cannot thwart the conventional and normative practice in the Ghanaian society. As we have intimated, homosexuality is a sexual aberration that needs psychological assistance.
Another angle from which we could look at the homosexual debate and the fallacy of the argument for the legalisation of the practice is the importance Africans attach to child birth. In Africa, marriage is a divine-cultural mandate and so it is incumbent on every individual of marriageable age to marry. Persons who are of marriageable age and yet refuse to marry become object of suspicion and scorn. And in Africa, apart from marriage serving as an outlet for the satisfaction of sexual desires, marriage is necessary largely for procreation. Children are a symbol of immortalising the ancestors on earth, and so great importance is attached to child birth. Barrenness is seen as a bad omen and it is widely dreaded. That explains why during the transition of young female neophyte into adulthood, every effort is made to guarantee the fertility of the neophyte. The deities are consulted and the powers of the ancestors/tresses solicited to claim fertility for the neophyte. To die young and childless also disqualifies one from becoming an ancestor or ancestress. So, in some cultures, I am told it is largely practised by the Fante, when a young man dies childless, there is a phallic ritual that is performed for him. Usually, such young men are not given fitting burial. It is the social implications of keeping the family from extinction that childbirth is highly cherished. To offset the social challenges of childlessness, different marriage practices have once and in some instances continued to exist in Africa. One such practice is ghost marriage. With ghost marriage, a wife is contracted between a young man, who died childless and a young lady. In ghost marriage, the bridewealth is presented to the bride’s family in the name of the deceased young man, after which a male distant relative of the deceased person is sought to consort with the bride. Children born out of the marriage union are considered the children of the deceased person. Thus, because the bridewealth is presented in the name of the deceased person, the deceased person is considered the ‘genitor’ of the children born out of ghost marriage, while the distant male relative serves as the pater. The practice of ghost marriage underscores the importance Africans attach to child birth, and since homosexuals, in the technical sense, cannot have children of their own, they cannot be tolerated in the African society. Today, homosexuals have a type of family called composite family, but unfortunately for them, this cannot be accepted in the African socio-cultural milieu. The pathological limitation of homosexualism explains why the practice was never transposed from its ritual context to the public. Apostles and doctors of homosexualism have searched in vain to find instances where marriage relation was constructed between persons of the same sex in traditional African society.
From the above, we have seen that while homosexuality is not foreign to Africa, what is rather foreign about it in Africa is the considered effort on the part of the West to legalise the illegality. What then should be our position on the criminalisation of the practice? Well, as it stands now, a lot of African countries have sometimes ambiguous laws on homosexuality. It was in Uganda, whose Anti-Homosexual Act, 2014, clearly outlawed homosexual practices. But unfortunately, the euphoria that embraced the law was only ephemeral. The law was repealed on 1 August, 2014 because parliament did not constitute a quorum when the law was passed. But in many African countries, as we have stated, the laws on homosexuality are ambiguous, and the ambiguity of the law has empowered advocates of homosexuality to fight for legalisation of the practice. But what should be the position of African countries on the criminalisation of the practice? Well, my position is very simple. Criminalising homosexuality, as I have always argued, will push the practice under cover. What we should do is to declare a crusade against the conditions that breed homosexuals. It is on record that many homosexuals were made and not created. And one factor that drives people into homosexual practice is poverty. My personal research has proven that a number of young men and women, who are into homosexuality, were lured into the practice because of parental poverty. Most of them became homosexuals when they were in Senior High schools or tertiary institutions. Such students were easily induced by their seniors or juniors to dabble in homosexual relations. Another practice that breeds homosexuals is the kind of orientation given to children. Some parents are guilty of pushing their children into homosexuality because they train their male children as females and females as males. So, such children grow up with identity crisis in terms of sexual orientation. To mitigate this challenge it is necessary for parents to apply common-sense in training their children: girls should be trained as girls, and boys should be trained as boys. Unbridled Western gender advocates should not cloud the traditional training of males and females in Africa. There are others who become homosexuals because of curiosity and rebellion against society. Having said this, the few who claim to have been born homosexuals should be assisted to see a psychologist for help, since the practice is a psychological challenge. Thus, to criminalise homosexuality is synonymous to criminalising a disease. While we condemn, in no uncertain terms, the attempt on the part of the West to compel Africans to legalise the anomaly, we also do not have any toleration for those who discriminate against homosexuals, simply because of their so-called sexual orientation.
Finally, what is empowering the West to shove the practice of homosexuality down the throat of Africans? The answer is very simple: Africans have lost their independence to the West. Since we continue to go to the West for even toothpick, the West will continue to dictate the pattern of our laws and social norms. The temerity of the David Cameron to demand from countries that rely heavily on Britain’s aid to liberalise their laws on homosexuality or risk losing British aid is simply because such countries depend on the West for a living. There is an African proverb that, ‘If you borrow a man’s legs, you will go where he directs you.’ And the bible also makes it clear in Proverb 22:7b that, ‘the borrower is a slave to the lender.’ A lot of African countries, because of unbridled borrowing, are slaves to the West, and because they are slaves, they do respond unhesitatingly to the beck and call of the West. The flag independence that Africans had and the unrestrained corruption of most African leaders and politicians has placed Africa in a very difficult position to relate with the West on equal terms. If we can challenge the West and kick against the call for homosexual practices to be legalised, then we need to reassert our independence and also subject human rights to the dictates of African cultural values.
Satygraha!!!!

Feature Article by: Charles Prempeh
The writer is a Lecturer at the African University College of Communications, Prolific Social analyst and PhD Student, Makerere Institute of Social Research, Makerere University
E-mail: prempehgideon@yahoo.com