This is what the guy wrote;
I just read your latest blog post in which you make reference to the penal code.
Question: Which penal code are you referring to? The one I have says:
129. Defilement of girl under the age of eighteen.
(1) Any person who unlawfully has sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of eighteen years commits an offence and is liable to suffer death.
(2) Any person who attempts to have unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of eighteen years commits an offence and is liable to imprisonment for eighteen years, with or without corporal punishment.
In this version it explicitly refers to girls below eighteen. Is the version of the penal code that I have an old one? Have a look the full pdf attached. You might need to check your/ Tamale’s sources, just so that your critics don’t hound you over it.He sent me a copy of the Penal Code Act which he had. I am posting it here.
Hey, I was worried. Really worried. But, I do trust Dr Tamale as a source. So, I sent off an email to Dr Tamale, praying for confirmation that I was right, and that Bahati and Martin Ssempa are lying.
Meanwhile, as I waited, I inserted a note of caution into this post. Hey, I do really dont want to grovel at Ssempa's feet, asking for forgiveness.
Dr Tamale delivered. Magnificently. Here is her reply
Yes, that's an old version of the Penal Code. The section that I sent you the other day was an amendment that was added in 2007. You will find it in the Penal Code (Amendment) Act, 2007 (Act No. 8 of 2007).
And, Here I go yeah!!!! YEah, Yes!
That is the perfect Old Year Present for me. Proof that Martin Ssempa and David Bahati are lying and that they know that they are lying. It is so good that I have to quote them again. Here is what they say.
Now, David Bahati is a member of the 8th Parliament. The last elections were in 2006 (or 07?). But Bahati became a member of the 8th Parliament then. He was one of the members of parliament who passed that particular ammendment to the Penal Code Act. He MUST have known that the old penal code didnt cover 'defilement of boys'. And, that the new one does, and very, very comprehensively.
To recap, Bahati and Ssempa say that the 'aggravated homosexuality' provision is to make the law more complete, because in the current law (here they cite the old, defunct act), there is no provision for the defilement of boys.
So, they lie that the law does not cover the defilement of boys.
Then they lie that they only want the death penalty for the defilers of boys. Not other homosexuals like me.
Poof. There go those lies.
I am glad that I was not mistaken.
And, I am glad that it is Ssempa and Bahati who I have caught in that lie. Oh, Ssempa is a very good liar. He gets a bit of the truth, and then builds a huge lie on top of it. So big that you wonder that, most likely the guy cannot be crazy, but he is telling the truth.
Yes, I will go into the New Year singing that. Ssempa and Bahati are lying.
And, I will not let them get away with it. Not when they are threatening my life.