The World Bank’s decision to lift its lending freeze on Uganda—despite the country’s controversial anti-LGBTQ+ legislation—has reignited global debate over the tension between economic development and human rights. This move, which follows a two-year pause on funding, comes after Uganda passed one of the harshest anti-LGBTQ+ laws globally in 2023, drawing sharp criticism from international human rights groups.
The law introduced severe penalties, including the death sentence for certain same-sex acts. Following its passage, Uganda’s Human Rights Awareness and Promotion Forum (HRAPF) reported over 500 cases of human rights abuses, including assaults, evictions, and arrests of LGBTQ+ individuals within just a few months.
Despite this, the World Bank has now resumed lending, citing new “mitigation measures” intended to prevent harm or discrimination against LGBTQ+ people in projects it funds. This reversal has prompted intense scrutiny, especially from observers in other African countries like Ghana and Kenya, where similarly controversial bills are under consideration.
The World Bank’s Influence and Criticism
The World Bank is a key source of development financing for low- and middle-income countries, funding essential infrastructure, education, and poverty reduction initiatives. In Ghana, for example, the Bank backs the LEAP cash transfer programme, water and sanitation efforts, and economic transformation projects.
However, critics argue that the Bank and the IMF have historically imposed restrictive conditions that can undermine long-term development. The Bank’s initial decision to halt lending to Uganda in 2023 was a major blow, cutting off a vital stream of infrastructure finance. UK-based group Open for Business estimated Uganda lost up to $1.7 billion in aid and investment in the first year after the law passed.
Uganda’s Justification and Ongoing Controversy
The Ugandan government defends the anti-LGBTQ+ law as a reflection of national values. In 2023, Information Minister Chris Baryomunsi claimed it was not discriminatory, but rather intended to regulate behaviours seen as culturally inappropriate. Rights groups, however, remain firm in their opposition, labelling the law repressive and politically motivated.
While the World Bank insists that its renewed engagement includes safeguards to protect LGBTQ+ individuals, experts question whether such protections are enforceable in contexts where local laws are actively discriminatory. For example, how can an LGBTQ+ person safely access healthcare from a World Bank-funded project in a country where their identity is criminalised?
Global Reactions and Ghana’s Parallel Debate
Uganda is not alone. Ghana has also faced backlash for advancing anti-LGBTQ+ legislation. In 2024, Parliament passed the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, which proposes prison terms for identifying as LGBTQ+ or supporting LGBTQ+ rights. Former President Nana Akufo-Addo withheld assent, citing ongoing legal challenges, while President John Mahama has shown partial support and suggested a revised, constitutionally sound version.
Ghana’s 1992 Constitution guarantees freedoms of expression and non-discrimination, yet LGBTQ+ Ghanaians frequently experience marginalisation. UN Human Rights Commissioner Volker Türk warned that the proposed bill would violate Ghana’s international obligations and damage its human rights record.
The economic stakes are high. Ghana’s Finance Ministry warned that passing the bill could threaten up to $3.8 billion in World Bank support and destabilise the country’s $3 billion IMF bailout programme.
Sovereignty, Rights, and International Leverage
The World Bank’s decision has sparked concerns about precedent. If financial support can be reinstated despite laws that undermine fundamental rights, what message does that send to other governments?
For African nations like Ghana, this creates a difficult choice between respecting cultural norms and maintaining access to international funding. Critics of the World Bank argue that re-engaging with Uganda without real human rights progress undermines global advocacy. Others believe conditional engagement is still better than cutting ties altogether.
The dilemma underscores how international aid, national sovereignty, and human rights are deeply interconnected. Uganda’s case is likely to influence how other governments craft policies, how civil society responds, and how global institutions enforce their values.
Conclusion
The core question remains: can development financing be effectively separated from human rights concerns? Or does continued engagement signal tolerance for repressive policies?
As African governments weigh their next steps, they must navigate a complex landscape of national identity, constitutional values, and international accountability—one that will shape both domestic policy and global perceptions.
