[ad_1]
South Africa stands in opposition, citing human rights and South African constitution
South African member of parliament Zandile Majozi tells the anti-LGBTQ conference that her nation rejects the human rights violations contained in the proposed anti-LGBTQ+ African charter.
The anti-LGBTQ+ inter-parliamentary conference ended last week with its supporters moving a step closer to their goal of continent-wide adoption of an African Charter on Family Sovereignty and Values by African Union member states, which most attendees endorsed.
However, South African representatives attended the gathering to express their opposition to the proposal as a violation of human rights protections enshrined in South Africa’s constitution.
The proposed charter would exclude same-sex families from the definition of an African family. It would also repeal human rights protections related to gender, sexuality, reproductive health, and freedom of expression across Africa.
The “4th African Regional Inter-Parliamentary Conference on Family Values and Sovereignty” on June 6-9 in Ghana was profoundly influenced by conservative anti-LGBTQ+ religious activists from the United States and Europe.
“The irony is difficult to miss: A movement that presents itself as resisting Western cultural imperialism relies on a vision of Africa that is itself profoundly colonial”, commented Caleb Okereke, founder and editor of the Minority Africa news service.
The LGBTQ+ rights advocacy group Rightify Ghana reported on the conference:
South Africa Abstains From African Family Charter Adoption Over Exclusion Of Same-Sex Marriage, Cites International Law and Constitution in Stance Defence
South Africa made the historic decision to abstain from adopting the proposed African Charter on Family, Sovereignty and Values. Led by delegation head Zandile Majozi, the South African team defended the abstention by citing an irreconcilable conflict between the charter’s exclusionary language and South Africa’s supreme legal frameworks.
The decision underscores South Africa’s enduring commitment to its post-apartheid constitutional identity, which prioritizes human rights and equality above geopolitical conformity.
The primary point of contention centered on the charter’s restrictive definition of marriage and family.
See Also
The draft text explicitly defines marriage as an exclusive union between a man and a woman, a clause intended by its authors to protect traditional African family structures.
However, as Zandile Majozi articulated during the deliberations, endorsing such a clause would directly violate the Constitution of South Africa. Enacted in 1996, South Africa’s constitution is globally renowned for its progressive Bill of Rights, which explicitly prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and paved the way for the legalization of same-sex marriage.
For the South African delegation, signing a regional document that codifies the exclusion of LGBTQ+ citizens was a legal and moral impossibility. In defending the nation’s stance, Majozi framed the abstention not as a rejection of African unity, but as a mandatory adherence to the rule of law.
South Africa’s legal system operates under constitutional supremacy, meaning no international treaty or regional charter can supersede the rights guaranteed to its citizens at home.
Furthermore, the delegation noted that supporting an exclusionary definition of family would compromise South Africa’s standing regarding international human rights treaties.
