On July 29, the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, located on the island of Saint Lucia—a Caribbean island nation with an estimated population of 183,629 in 2020—declared Articles 132 and 133 of the Penal Code unconstitutional. These articles had criminalized sexual relations between same-sex individuals, even when consensual.
This decision adds to a growing number of similar rulings in the region: in 2022, courts in Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, and Saint Kitts and Nevis issued comparable decisions. On April 22, 2024, Dominica followed suit after proceedings that began in 2022.
However, several Caribbean nations still criminalize same-sex relations, including Belize, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago.
In the latter, although the anti-sodomy law was struck down in 2018, that ruling was overturned in March 2025, reinstating its illegality and labeling such acts as “gross indecency”—language still used in the penal codes of several island nations.
As of March 2025, at least 64 countries worldwide continue to criminalize homosexuality. Among them, 12 countries impose the death penalty for private, consensual same-sex activity (Iran, northern Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Brunei, Mauritania, Pakistan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Uganda).
The Legacy of Colonization
A stark contrast exists between Caribbean legal systems and those of the broader Americas, where most countries no longer criminalize homosexual conduct.
This disparity clearly reflects the lasting impact of colonial and postcolonial structures—particularly those tied to the United Kingdom.
The 2023 report by UN Special Rapporteur Victor Madrigal-Borloz, titled “Colonialism and Sexual Orientation”, offers a compelling analysis of this legacy.
The report delivers a profound critique of colonialism not only as an economic and territorial system of domination, but also as one that regulated bodies, affections, and ways of being. The legacy of colonial laws continues to restrict LGBTIQ+ rights across many postcolonial contexts.
In this light, decolonization must be seen as a legal, cultural, and political process, which includes dismantling colonial legal frameworks and recognizing diverse sexual and gender worldviews.
The report acknowledges that many precolonial societies around the world had cultural and spiritual systems that embraced sexual and gender diversity.
Examples include the māhū in Hawai‘i and Tahiti, muxes in Mexico, two-spirit people in North America, and hijras in South Asia. These identities were not merely tolerated—they held ceremonial, spiritual, and leadership roles within their communities.
European colonial projects—especially the British—introduced strict social control systems, often through religious conversion, enforcement of rigid gender binaries, and the criminalization of non-conforming sexual and gender identities.
As the British Empire expanded, it systematically imposed its legal codes, including anti-sodomy laws, which formed part of Britain’s legal system at the time.
Beyond legal imposition, British colonialism promoted Christian moral values that condemned same-sex acts as sinful—values that continue to shape postcolonial legal and social norms.
Ongoing Impact in Postcolonial Societies
These colonial laws still shape many postcolonial societies today.
Several former British colonies continue to enforce laws that criminalize same-sex relations.
The Special Rapporteur highlights how so-called “sodomy laws”—which targeted same-sex relationships and non-normative gender expressions—were central tools of legal and moral repression.
The term “sodomy”, rooted in religious discourse, was broadly used in colonial law to cover a wide range of sexual behaviors—not just anal sex. It is not a neutral or natural concept but rather one constructed within colonial power structures.
One of the report’s key contributions is its identification of colonial legal systems as enduring mechanisms.
In the case of British colonization, criminal codification began with the 1534 Buggery Act and was institutionalized in the 1860 Indian Penal Code, which was later replicated across numerous colonies.
This legal model, which criminalized so-called “unnatural acts,” still exists in various forms in countries such as Uganda, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan.
The report also examines the role of still-operational colonial institutions, such as the UK’s Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, whose conservative 2022 ruling in Trinidad and Tobago curtailed LGBTIQ+ rights by invoking colonial-era constitutional clauses.
Despite the persistent influence of colonial-era laws, the report recognizes major advances in decriminalization and the protection of LGBTIQ+ rights in countries such as South Africa, India, Fiji, and several Caribbean nations.
These achievements have been made possible through collaborative efforts between civil society, the judiciary, and legislative bodies, working to align national laws with international human rights standards.
The Saint Lucia Case
In the case of Randall Theodule, Vernon Bellas, and United and Strong Inc. v. The Attorney General of Saint Lucia (SLUHCV2021/0457), the claimants filed a constitutional challenge before the High Court of Saint Lucia—part of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court—questioning the validity of Articles 132(2) and 133 of the Penal Code.
These provisions criminalized:
- Gross indecency (Article 132): defined as any non-penetrative sexual act between persons, even in private and with mutual consent.
- Sodomy (Article 133): anal sex between adults, even in the privacy of their own homes.
The plaintiffs argued that these laws violated several fundamental rights enshrined in Saint Lucia’s Constitution, particularly Articles 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 13, and 16, which guarantee the rights to life, liberty, privacy, legal protection, freedom of expression, and non-discrimination.
In its ruling, the Court held that the challenged provisions violated the rights to personal liberty, privacy, freedom of expression, legal protection, and freedom from discrimination based on sex or sexual orientation.
Furthermore, the State failed to prove that these laws were necessary or proportionate to protect public interests such as safety, order, or health.
The Court noted that:
- The penalized acts occur in private and are virtually impossible to monitor or punish without infringing on privacy.
- There is no reasonable justification for criminalizing same-sex relations while allowing similar conduct among heterosexual couples.
- The laws do not meet the standards of proportionality nor reflect the values of a modern democratic society.
Autonomy and free will are foundational to democracy. While not unlimited, they imply that individuals must be allowed to make personal decisions freely.
Thus, whether in the name of deterrence or morality, the objectives of the challenged laws cannot be considered legitimate.
Even if they were, they could not justify infringing on a person’s freedom of thought, expression, or private life, nor justify singling out individuals who, in their own homes, engage in consensual acts of gross indecency or sodomy—regardless of whether others find such acts objectionable.
Regarding the tension between public morality and individual rights, the Court acknowledged that moral perspectives on homosexuality may vary, but emphasized that the law cannot impose a religious or conservative moral standard on all citizens.
Morality is personal and should not be the basis for criminalizing consensual decisions between adults.
The Court further argued that criminalizing homosexuality may deprive LGBTQ individuals of equal protection under the law, and that public humiliation, defamation, or physical violence against them may be direct consequences of the stigma perpetuated by criminalization.
Such outcomes are incompatible with human dignity and the evolving standards of decency in a free and democratic society.
Additionally, the judges concluded that criminalization contributes to stigmatization, violence, and discrimination and deprives LGBTQ people of the State’s protection.
Based on these findings, the Supreme Court ruled that:
- Articles 132 and 133 of the Penal Code are unconstitutional to the extent that they criminalize consensual sexual acts between adults in private, without coercion or violence.
- These laws violate multiple constitutional rights, including privacy, freedom of expression, legal protection, and equality before the law.
- The Penal Code must be amended as follows:
a) Article 132 must be revised to permit acts of gross indecency in private between consenting adults, regardless of sex.
b) Article 133 must be revised so that the crime of sodomy excludes consensual acts between adults (aged 16 or older) in private.
Final Thoughts
Globally, there are contradictory trends in this area. While some African countries have recently adopted measures to further criminalize same-sex conduct, the Caribbean—by contrast—appears to be moving steadily toward decriminalization.
In this context, and beyond purely legal considerations, it is essential to heed the Special Rapporteur’s call to integrate cultural perspectives into how we understand gender and sexuality.
This means making room for terms, categories, and understandings of diversity that are **rooted in specific cultural