MP Kaluma responds to Supreme Court's ruling against anti-LGBTQ suit

By Peter Ochieng

Homabay Town Member of Parliament (MP) Peter Opondo Kaluma has reacted to the Supreme Court's ruling on his anti-LGBTQ suit.

Nairobi Review reported that the lawyer turned politician had contested decisions by the High Court and Court of Appeal, allowing registration of LGBTQ lobby groups under the NGOs Act.

Kaluma accused the courts of what he termed as opening a flood gate for the promotion of a pro-gay and lesbian agenda in the country.

However, Supreme Court judges dismissed the petition stating that he was not part of the court process from the beginning.

“Section 21A of the Supreme Court Act provides for the circumstances pursuant to which this Court may review its own decision on an application filed by “a party”," ruled the judges.

In his reaction, the legislature said it was unfortunate that the apex court disregarded merits of his application.

"The Supreme Court has dismissed our application seeking review of the court’s past judgement importing homosexuality/LGBTQ into Kenya. The court has disregarded the substance/merits of the application and proceeded on the technicality that I was not a party to ealier proceedings," he wrote in a statement.

"It's unfortunate that the institutions Kenyans established to protect human rights, especially the had won rights of women, like @NGECKenya have not bothered to read and understand that this bad Supreme Court collapses the women's rights including the 2/3 gender rule!"

He added that Kenyans should wake up and protect humanity from homosexuality.

"No one, no group of people should have the right to parade or march naked before my family and children! Let's all wake up and protect humanity from homosexuality/LGBTQ perversion!"

In throwing out Kaluma's petition, the five judge Supreme Court bench led by Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu said:

“The applicant has not demonstrated to our satisfaction that the impugned Judgment was obtained by fraud or deceit, is a nullity, or that the court was misled into giving its judgment under a mistaken belief that the parties had consented thereto.”