A 2014 Sida report on the Rights of LGBTI People in Sudan and South Sudan states that same-sex acts are illegal in Sudan and South Sudan and societal discrimination is widespread against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) people. That an overwhelming majority of the population in Sudan considers non-conforming sexuality and gender expression socially unacceptable. Also, few people dare talk about sexual orientation or gender identity publicly, for fear of personal attacks and threats to their safety. There are reports of vigilantes targeting suspected LGBTI people for violent abuse and public demonstrations against homosexuality. Further, criminalisation, discrimination and stigmatisation have made LGBTI people invisible; they often lack access to basic rights such as personal security, legal protection, and healthcare, and basic information about sexuality and sexual health.

In 2010 in the run up to the partition of Sudan in 2011, President Salva Kiir Mayardit  – then First Vice President of Sudan promised full democracy, equality and justice to all citizens but explicitly excluded homosexuals from this protection insisting that homosexuality was an imported idea stating: “It is not in our character […] it is not there and if anybody wants to import it to Sudan […] it will always be condemned by everybody.”

In 2010 it was widely reported that a group of 30 men in Khartoum were convicted of violating Sudan’s public morality codes for cross dressing, wearing women’s make up and dancing in a “womanly fashion” – the private party at which they were arrested was described my the media in Sudan as a “gay wedding” despite the court making no reference to a marriage ceremony. The men had no lawyers present and were not permitted to speak during the trial. They were sentenced to 30 lashes- the sentence was carried out publically immediately after their trial; they were also ordered to pay 1,000 Sudanese pounds.

In February 2011 Sudan led a block vote at the UN’s Economic and Social Council against Belgium’s proposal to accept an application by the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) for consultative status. The ’no action’ motion was immediately proposed by Sudan and was eventually successful in defeating Belgium’s motion by 9 votes to 7 stating ‘Our opposition to this organization is principled, because of the nefarious and evil acts done by this group’. At an earlier attempt to gain consultative status for ILGA in 2002 Sudan voted against the motion stating that the organisation had failed to provide ‘crystal clear evidence that it had rid itself and its members of paedophilia…the vote of not granting status to the NGO would affirm the will and commitment of the international community to protect our children’.

In 2012 a report on Sudan’s Blue Nile TV claimed that the country’s problems with HIV/AIDS was due to the fact teenage boys are sodomising younger males at school. This report was substantiated by a doctor who said that Sodomy is on the alarming increase in the country’s school system with older boys forcing younger boys to have sex with them in the school toilets with the result of spreading the AIDS epidemic.

In 2013 it was reported that a group of nine Sudanese men were arrested and beaten for being gay. The incident took place at the private flat of a well-known singer. Neighbours initially alerted police after being angered by the young men’s attire. In court the police alleged that at the time of the arrest the singer was wearing women’s clothes and two other suspects were in their underwear. The men were then charged with committing indecent acts. In court the men’s defence lawyer had claimed the trial had been unfairly influenced by consistent negative publicity by the media’s erroneous descriptions of the gathering as a ‘gay wedding’.

OO (Sudan) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 1432 (18 November 2009)
The claimant fled Sudan to the UK and based his asylum claim on his homosexuality and risk of persecution if he lived as a gay man in Sudan. The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) found that laws prohibiting homosexuality were rarely, if ever, enforced although the fact that they were in existence was an issue. Applying the rest set out in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) ex parte Razgar (FC) (Respondent) [2004] UKHL 27 it was found that Article 8 could be employed in this case. In the circumstances, there were not sufficient grounds to find that Article 8 rights would be infringed upon with the use of reasonable discretion and therefore the appeal was dismissed. The argument of reasonable discretion has since been overturned by HJ (Iran) and HT (Cameroon) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department.