Before engaging in a debate with any person, I typically review their account to better understand their perspective or ideological stance. Now, here is my take, inspired by a comment made to criticise someone else here on the basis of their presumed sexuality – you know, just as men often resort to calling a woman they’re arguing with hule, it seems to be a common trend to label people as gay or refer to non-binary sexualities to shut down the debate. Fascinating, isn’t it?

To begin with, it must be noted that colonial powers introduced anti-gay laws in the mid-1800s during their rule in colonial territories. This implies that the colonisers had observed widespread instances of same-sex relationships among the natives and sought to suppress them. Speaking of Malawi under British colonial administration, such relationships clearly conflicted with the British colonisers’ religious norms, which, as we know, were intertwined with their Christian beliefs and notions of “natural” order.

A relevant point here is that laws are not created in a vacuum. They are introduced in response to practices deemed significant enough to threaten or contradict the established order. For example, during his presidency, Bingu wa Mutharika (who I consider one of the greatest leaders Malawi has ever had) introduced laws to suppress demonstrations when his popularity declined, with protests erupting across every corner of the country. To instil fear, he even implemented the infamous “shoot-to-kill” policy.

Similarly, colonisers banned activities like drinking liquor on weekdays to ensure natives remained productive in colonial estates. Once again, laws target behaviours that are occurring widely enough to be perceived as a challenge to authority or established structures. The same can be said for laws on witchcraft. This brings me back to my main argument.

If we accept this premise, it follows that anti-gay laws, like other colonial laws which were designed to protect and align with the colonial administrative powers and beliefs, are therefore archaic and deeply rooted in the colonisation of Malawi and other African societies – emerging from colonial and slavers conservative religious movements that shaped their colonial and imperial movement . As I argue in my forthcoming paper, these colonial laws are not indigenous to African societies such as Malawi with its diverse cultural make up from the word go – even before David Livingstone (ironically, a Christian missionary serving the British colonial interests) paved way for the colonisation of Malawi and other countries within the region – Ohhh Dr Livingstone I presume.

Building on this, one can argue that it is fundamentally contradictory to claim to be a pan-Africanist while simultaneously upholding colonial laws and beliefs. These ideologies are built on binary, exclusionary worldviews: white is superior, male is superior, women exist to serve men, and the world is strictly divided into binaries; and thus, the only accepted sex is that of the binary genders.

To genuinely embrace pan-Africanism is to reject imperialist legacies that sought to erase or suppress African cultural practices. So, who are you? A pan-Africanist committed to decolonising African identities and systems, or a proponent of colonial ideologies? You cannot truly be both!