In 2018, Aboneka petitioned the Constitutional Court, saying that he had expressed interest to get married at Watoto Church and made initial bookings with them. He, however, said that he was thrown into a dilemma, which affected his constitutional will because of the stringent mandatory requirements set by the church to wed him.
The Constitutional Court will deliver its decision on notice in the application by city lawyer Michael Aboneka challenging what he terms tough and harsh wedding conditions set by Watoto Church Limited.
It came after the parties told a panel of five Constitutional Court Justices led by Fredrick Egonda Ntende that they had complied with the court's directives to make their submissions explaining why the case should be determined in their favor. The other justices are Elizabeth Musoke, Christopher Izama Madrama, Monica Mugenyi, and Christopher Gashirabake.
In 2018, Aboneka petitioned the Constitutional Court, saying that he had expressed interest to get married at Watoto Church and made initial bookings with them. He, however, said that he was thrown into a dilemma, which affected his constitutional will because of the stringent mandatory requirements set by the church to wed him.
These include among others a letter of blessing from the bride’s parents or guardians which Aboneka argued offends the right to free will and consent to marriage, the mandatory HIV testing and Counselling report, and from specific medical facilities that he argues violate the right to privacy of an individual and the freedom to seek medical services from centers of their choice.
Other requirements include the mandatory interview/interaction between the pastor and intending couples with absolute power to declare them fit or unfit for marriage, or fit with “conditions” by mere interview. According to Aboneka, this is unfounded and unconstitutional as it violates the parties’ right to free consent.
That by the respondent/Watoto requiring a letter of consent/blessings from the parents of the bride only and not that of the groom, is discriminatory in nature and undermines the dignity, welfare, interest, and status of the women, and is unconstitutional," added Aboneka.
In 2012, the World Health Organization-WHO revealed that there was a high proportion of discordant couples with potential for new HIV infections among them, and it accordingly issued guidelines for Couple HIV Counseling and Testing –CHCT aimed at people who are in a sexual relationship and wish to test together and mutually disclose their results.
In the guidelines, WHO said whenever appropriate and feasible, mutual disclosure of HIV test results under the guidance of a counselor should be encouraged and facilitated. As a result, the government of Uganda put in place the HIV and Aids Prevention Control Act of 2014 two years later, which requires all persons to take reasonable steps to prevent and control the prevalence of HIV.
Most churches have since adopted this initiative. But in his petition, Aboneka told the court that the requirements were in violation of his fundamental human rights and contravene the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, which is binding on all persons and authorities throughout the country.
Aboneka asked the Court to declare all weddings that were conducted by Watoto Church under the same regulation irregular, unfounded in law, unconstitutional, and therefore null and void. He further asked the court to issue a permanent order restraining all Churches, mosques, and any other institutions that celebrate weddings and demanded such requirements to stop asking them from adults.
//Cue in: “So we challenged …..
Cue out: … guard my information."//
Luganda Audio
Cue in: “Tuze mukoti etaputa…
Cue out: …okontana ne semateeka."//
On their part, Watoto church admits asking for some of the contentious requirements but hastens to add that they have never refused to wed anybody based on their HIV status.
Watoto through its lawyers led by Francis Gimara argue that the church does this to help the couples make a free and informed choice (consent) on whether or not to continue with the marriage celebration. According to the Church, its guidelines are calculated to ensure that the marriage institution is stable as a family is the foundation of society, the disintegration of which could lead to the collapse of a nation.
‘That all marriages celebrated at its premises are conducted in accordance with its rites and usages and also in accordance with the Marriage Act," says Watoto. The court also heard that Aboneka and his then intended bride are not members of the respondent and have no merit to petition the court.
Gimara wondered whether it was still necessary for Aboneka to continue pursuing this case four years after he had already been wed and had appeared with a shining ring on his finger, which shows that he is now a happily married man. In response, Justice Ntende told Gimara that he did not have proof to this effect and said that they will notify the parties when their judgment is ready.
