The law is often said to be an ass. It can cut both ways. It also allows people to leave the substance and chase shadows. Lawyers can feast on what lay people regard as trivialities or frivolities as the judiciary interprets the laws. Take the case of a district court in Sudan that acquitted 24 women from the criminal charge of wearing indecent clothes at a party in southern Khartoum. But the court fined the party’s sponsor.
According to a report, Public Order Police stormed the place and arrested the young women for wearing trousers to the party. Article 152 of the Criminal Code considers the wearing of trousers in Sudan indecent dressing and is punishable by heavy cane lashes.
But at the court session last week, the prosecution quietly dropped the charges against the ladies and did not discuss them further.
Meanwhile, the party’s sponsor has been charged under Article 79, for holding a public party while the permit she obtained indicated the occasion was to be ‘family farewell party’. The sponsor has been fined SDG 10,000 ($1,493), while the owner of the sound system at the party was fined SDG 5,000 ($747).
The party organizer claimed that she had requested a permit for a public party from the authorities and had not seen what was written in the permit before the police swarmed the party.
Women rights activists in Sudan and abroad have criticized the Public Order Act for its discriminatory provisions, especially Article 152. It states among others: “Whoever does in a public place an indecent act or an act contrary to public morals, or wears an obscene outfit, or contrary to public morals, or causing an annoyance to public feelings shall be punished with flogging, which may not exceed forty lashes or with fine or with both.” Such discriminatory laws cannot stand the test of time.
