Uganda’s health minister faced sharp questions in New York over whether LGBTQ people can safely access healthcare under the country’s strict anti-homosexuality law. His response highlighted the widening gap between Uganda’s stated service policy, the legislation’s severe penalties and international concern about its real-world impact.

Essential Takeaways

  • Minister challenged: Chris Baryomunsi was questioned at a UN General Assembly side event about healthcare access for LGBTQ Ugandans.
  • Government position: He said Uganda doesn’t deny healthcare or public services because of sexual orientation.
  • Cultural argument: Baryomunsi defended the law as reflecting what he described as African traditions and beliefs.
  • Severe penalties: Uganda’s 2023 Anti-Homosexuality Act includes life imprisonment and, in some circumstances, the death penalty.
  • Health concern: Rights groups and health experts warn that fear of arrest or exposure could discourage people from seeking vital treatment.

A tense healthcare question in New York

The strongest moment came when Uganda’s Health Minister Chris Baryomunsi was asked how LGBTQ people are treated when they seek medical care. The question landed against a difficult backdrop: a law that imposes extreme penalties for some same-sex relationships, alongside the government’s claim that healthcare should remain available to everyone.

Baryomunsi said Uganda doesn’t discriminate against homosexual people when they use public services, including healthcare. According to TUKO.co.ke, he presented the government’s position as a distinction between access to services and its opposition to same-sex relationships.

That distinction may sound tidy in a conference room, but it’s far less simple for someone deciding whether a clinic feels safe. Healthcare depends on trust, confidentiality and the confidence that asking for help won’t create fresh danger.

Uganda defends the law through culture and religion

Speaking to a largely international audience, Baryomunsi argued that Uganda’s position is rooted in African culture, tradition and belief systems. He described homosexuality as something learned rather than an expression of identity, repeating an argument often used by supporters of the legislation.

The minister also invoked a Christian principle to explain the government’s stated approach: condemning what it considers sinful while still providing services to those who need them. That framing reflects the moral and religious language surrounding Uganda’s debate, but it doesn’t settle the practical questions raised by rights organisations and health professionals.

As reporting from the Associated Press has noted, the law has attracted intense criticism because of the potential consequences for LGBTQ people, activists and organisations that support them. The disagreement is no longer confined to personal morality; it reaches into public health, privacy and the limits of state power.

What Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act says

Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act was signed into law in 2023 after Parliament approved sweeping measures targeting same-sex relationships and related activity. The legislation includes lengthy prison sentences and allows the death penalty in certain “aggravated homosexuality” cases, according to the text published by Refworld.

The bill’s harshest provisions triggered condemnation before becoming law. Axios reported that the proposed measures included the death penalty, while Time documented the international alarm surrounding Parliament’s move. The resulting pressure has come from Western governments, human rights groups and global health organisations.

For LGBTQ Ugandans, the legal language matters beyond courtrooms. A law that threatens severe punishment can affect whether people disclose their sexuality to a doctor, report abuse, seek HIV services or trust a support organisation. The fear may exist even when a minister insists that healthcare access is formally open to all.

Why the health consequences matter

Public health works best when people seek advice early and can speak honestly. That’s particularly important for HIV prevention, testing and treatment, as well as mental health support and care after violence. If patients worry that a conversation could expose them to arrest, discrimination or social retaliation, they may simply stay away.

The international concern has therefore focused not only on the wording of the law, but on its likely chilling effect. Reporting by Le Monde has described the precarious conditions facing gay people in Uganda, where the prospect of the death penalty adds a deeply frightening edge to everyday life.

Meanwhile, AP coverage has highlighted the broader human rights dispute around the legislation. The central question is uncomfortable but straightforward: can people feel genuinely safe using healthcare when the state publicly condemns their identity and criminal law carries such severe punishments?

The diplomatic pressure is unlikely to disappear

Baryomunsi’s appearance shows why Uganda continues to face difficult questions at international gatherings. The government wants to defend its cultural sovereignty and insist that public services remain available, while critics argue that the law itself makes equal access impossible in practice.

This tension will probably remain a recurring feature of Uganda’s international relations. Every official reassurance about healthcare is likely to be tested against reports from LGBTQ people, clinicians and rights groups who describe the consequences on the ground.

For now, the New York exchange has put the issue back in the spotlight. A promise of access matters, but so does whether people believe they can walk through a clinic door without fear.

A healthcare guarantee only works when patients feel safe enough to use it.

Source Reference Map

Story idea inspired by: [1]

Sources by paragraph: