Solidarity means handing over power – Edward Mutebi on queer rights in development coopoeration

An interview with Edward Mutebi (Bündnis Queere Nothilfe, Let’s Walk Uganda)

published in BER-Newsletter 3 / March 2026

LGBTIQ* rights — that is, the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex people as well as other queer communities — face significant repression globally. In development policy debates, this is often discussed as part of a global backlash against gender equality. In this interview, we speak with Edward Mutebi (Queer Emergency Aid Alliance, Let’s Walk Uganda) about the possibilities and limits of transnational solidarity in strengthening the rights, power, and self-determination of LGBTIQ* people. As a panelist at the BER evening panel in November 2025, Edward Mutebi discussed the connections between queer-feminist and decolonial approaches together with Radwa Khaled-Ibrahim (medico international) and Abdul-wadud Mohammed, Moh (formerly LGBT+ Rights Ghana).

BER: Organisations in the Global North are working on strengthening LGBTIQ* rights. But still the work is influenced by colonial continuities. How can NGOs face this dilemma and avoid reproducing colonial power or instrumentalising queer realities from outside?

Edward Mutebi: To design development cooperation differently, we first need to fundamentally change our understanding of the realities in the Global South. For example, we often assume that queer identities and rights originated in Europe and are transferred to the Global South. This ignores the fact that diverse sexualities and gender identities existed in our societies before colonial rule, and were later criminalised through colonial laws. If you look at countries like Uganda, Ghana or Kenya, vibrant movements have been organising for decades under extremely difficult conditions – even under repressive laws such as Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2023. We need to shift the mindset from exporting (Northern or European) values to redistributing power between North and South.

Real power sharing means allowing local actors to define priorities, including in the allocation of funds. After the Anti-Homosexuality Act was adopted in Uganda, organisations urgently needed legal aid, safe housing and psychosocial support. But funding often remained tied to predefined campaigns, creating a mismatch between urgent needs and available resources. This shows why flexibility and local agenda setting are essential. Top-down decisions from the Global North undermine local leadership and context-based judgement.

Development initiatives in general, including capacity building, should not assume expertise flows only from North to South. Southern activists are political navigators who understand their environments. For many organisations, resilience and survival under repression are the primary goals. We need shared governance structures where people from the Global South participate directly in decision-making. Partnerships should involve co-created programmes, transparent resource distribution, shared risk, and political advocacy in Europe when anti-rights narratives are fuelled abroad. Solidarity is not about defining queer realities from the outside – it’s about creating conditions in which communities can safely define themselves.

BER: What structural barriers and power dynamics do you see in development cooperation for queer and local organisations in countries of the Global South, such as Uganda? And what can be done to dismantle them?

Edward Mutebi: We need to accept the uncomfortable truth that development cooperation often operates within colonial structures.To break these down, we must address the structural mechanisms of development cooperation. The funding logic is central here. Most funding is short-term and project-based, which creates precarity for organisations in the Global South. At the same time, complex compliance and rigid accounting requirements favour large and established organisations, putting grassroots and trans-led initiatives at a disadvantage.

This is because of the logic of de-risking, which means working with entities that can fully account for their fuding sources and expenditures, and thus reduce the accountability burden – for example the BMZ towards the German government. De-risking therefore leads to partnerships primarily with established organisations that have the proper reporting tools. Very important institutions and grassroots initiatives are going to be left behind in this system. Yet these are the groups responding to real local needs and driving true change on the ground.

One concrete example of how these structural barriers play out is in Kenya: Members of Parliament have proposed anti-LGBTIQ+ legislation similar to Uganda’s. Organizations need rapid response funding. Instead, they face one-year project cycles and rigid output frameworks. We saw this in Uganda after the law was passed — we are still dealing with its consequences. You can’t expect us to provide the same documents as four or five years ago, before the anti-homosexuality law was in place. Things are changing. Funding mechanisms must embrace flexible emergency mechanisms to support communities in urgent contexts.

BER: How can NGOs in Berlin best reach smaller organisations and grassroots initiatives run by trans people or refugees in the Global South?

Edward Mutebi: Organisations and corporations in Germany should actively reach out if they genuinely want to support grassroots initiatives. Support mechanisms should prioritise consortia that are rooted in and accountable to grassroots communities. Organisations and government websites should make funding opportunities transparent and accessible instead of leaving groups to search for hidden resources. Language barriers, for example, make it difficult for groups in the Global South to access information about funding opportunities at all, which increases the imbalance. 

In summary: To overcome structural barriers and colonial power relations, development cooperation must shift towards long-term core funding, flexible emergency mechanisms, simplified reporting requirements, and accessible, direct funding for Southern-led consortia.

BER: Berlin presents itself as the rainbow capital, and it is an important location for development policy actors. What specific recommendations do you have for politicians and civil society in Berlin to support queer communities and grassroots communities in the Global South? In a spirit of solidarity, what practices should they consciously avoid so as not to reproduce inequalities?

Edward Mutebi: Berlin is indeed a queer capital, at least on a symbolic level – and we appreciate that. But symbolic branding without structural responsibility risks reproducing the very inequalities Berlin claims to challenge. The recent funding cuts for so many important projects – which have affected feminist and queer initiatives in particular, as well as those supporting refugees and marginalised communities – are unacceptable. We have to ensure that the responsible entities, such as the Senate, provide adequate resources to support communities and existing initiatives. These may include funding, housing, exchange programmes – or expanding emergency visa programmes for activists at risk in countries with anti-LGBTQ+ laws, like Uganda. If we don’t take accountability here in Berlin, we lose the credibility to call ourselves the rainbow capital.

BER: Regarding the bilateral relationship between Germany and Uganda: Germany continues to finance programmes in Uganda, including churches. What impact does this have on the Anti-Homosexuality Act?

Edward Mutebi:  This highlights the contradiction in Global North funding. Germany supports LGBT+ movements in Uganda, but it also funds state institutions despite concerns about democratic backsliding and electoral irregularities.

For example: There are problems with police brutality in Uganda towards the LGBT+ community. Despite documented patterns of abuse, funding continues to flow to security institutions. There is also funding for institutions like the Interreligious Council of Uganda, which have played significant roles in mobilising anti-LGBT+ narratives. So while limited resources go to progressive human rights work, substantial funding may indirectly strengthen institutions that contribute to repression. Sometimes we receive little or no funding for resisting the Anti-Homosexuality Act, while far more resources go to institutions that effectively prosecute us. Taxpayers’ money should not support institutions that violate the rights, dignity, and freedom of people. This problem is exacerbated by the lack of transparency. When money is negotiated behind closed doors between governments, it becomes difficult to track how it is used. The Ugandan government may ask Germany for money for a road, but then transfer it to security. In some cases, funds may indirectly support homophobia, like with the Interreligious Council of Uganda. We are not calling for a complete withdrawal of funding – we are advocating targeted measures. Funding should be clearly allocated to concrete development projects—roads, hospitals, schools for girls—and monitored transparently. If Germany provides funds for education, there must be follow-up to ensure they serve that purpose.