Status of 2015 Uganda National Constitutional Law Moot

This year the status of the Second Annual (hopefully) Uganda National Constitutional Law Moot is somewhat fluid.

Despite some efforts by the organisers we have yet to identify donors to support the competition.

However, although we do not have neither funding we do have a moot problem: (click on the link)

http://ugandamoot.blogspot.com/2015/01/2015-constitutional-moot-problem-19.html

So by sharing this problem publicly at this time we are giving the community of Ugandan law schools the chance to use this problem as they wish.

If and when we have a date, time and place for a 2015 Uganda National Constitutional Law Moot this is the problem your teams will be working from.  So you can use this problem for internal competitions to determine which team will represent your law school.  (That is what we will be doing at Uganda Christian University).

Hopefully the National Competition will take place in March, April or May of 2015.  We will keep you posted on further developments.

Brian Dennison
Moot Organiser (for now)   

2015 Constitutional Moot Problem (19 January 2015 Draft)

2015 Constitutional Moot Problem (19 January 2015 Draft)

In the Constitutional Court of Uganda, Kampala Division 

Blue Uganda Inc. and Mahesh Gupta v the Attorney General of Uganda

PRELIMINARY NOTE: FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS MOOT PROBLEM WE WILL OPERATE UNDER THE FACTUAL PRESUMPTION THAT BOTH THE ANTI-PORNOGRAPHY ACT AND THE PUBLIC ORDER MANAGEMENT ACT WERE PROPERLY ADOPTED WITH PARLIAMENTARY QUORUM.

Royal Blue Telecom is mobile phone and internet service provider based out of Belgium.  It is wholly owned by the members of the royal family of Belgium.  

Blue Uganda is a duly incorporated corporation under the laws of Uganda.  Royal Blue Telecom (an entity wholly owned by the Belgium royal family) owns 99% of the stock in Blue Uganda.  1% of the stock is held by Mahesh Gupta, a citizen of Uganda, who is also the Chief Operations Officer of Blue Uganda. 

Blue Uganda has been offering mobile phone and internet access services in Uganda since 2009.  Up until recently Blue Uganda was Uganda’s second leading provider of Internet access services and fourth leading provider of mobile phone services.

Blue Uganda prides itself on its commitment to social justice.  Each year it holds the Blue Lake Triathlon which raises money for the education of children with disabilities in Uganda.  Unfortunately concerns over bilharzia from swimming in Lake Victoria has limited participation in this event over the years.  

Other efforts of Blue Uganda have generated greater community participation and impact.  This is especially true of Blue Uganda’s Virtual Community Meeting (VCM) initiative.  Every month Blue Uganda hosts an interactive gathering on its network to discuss a topic relevant to Ugandans.  Internet access to participate in this event is provided at no charge.  Recent topics covered at VCMs include ‘Women and their Bodies’ and ‘Presidential Term Limits as a Human Right.’  According to Blue Uganda over 2 Million Ugandans participated on their last VCM entitled ‘Realising the Right to Education’.

Blue Uganda has been rocked of late by the Government of Uganda.  The Government actions against Blue Uganda have come from two fronts.

First, the Ugandan Government has taken action against Blue Uganda for violation of the Public Order Management Act, 2013.  The Government contends that the VCMs hosted by Blue Uganda amount to unauthorised public meetings in violation of the Public Order Management Act.  It is true that Blue Uganda never took any steps to register their VCMs with governmental authorities.  Blue Uganda did not believe that online meetings amounted to public meeting under the Public Order Management Act.   

Police arrested Mahesh Gupta based on his role in repeatedly violating the Public Order Management Act on 8 September 2014.  He is now out on bond but is facing criminal charges for twelve violations of the Act.  He faces a much as twelve months in prison for each of the alleged violations of the Act. 

In addition, Blue Uganda faces a fine in the amount of 480,000 UGX for each of its 12 violations of the Public Order Management Act.  The fine is based on the total estimated number of participants in the VCMs since the enactment of the Public Order Management Act.  Blue Uganda has not been able to pay this fine with its funds from Ugandan operations and the Government of Uganda issued a directive that Blue Uganda must stop all business operations in Uganda until the fine is paid in full in order.

Second, the Ugandan Government has taken action against Blue Uganda for violation of the Anti-Pornography Act.  In July 2014, the Anti-Pornography Commission commissioned a sample review of Blue Uganda internet subscribers.  The resulting forensic and statistical analysis based on this review indicated that Blue Uganda subscribers have used Blue Internet services to access pornographic material, as defined in the Anti-Pornography Act, over 982 Million times.  Based on a fine of 2000 currency points per violation this results in Blue Uganda owing up to 4M UGX per violation for a total possible fine of nearly 4 Quadrillion UGX.  The Anti-Pornography Commission sent Blue Uganda a letter on 3 October 2014 demanding that it pay a fine of 500 Billion UGX in order to avoid the filing of formal criminal charges.  

The demand letter also indicated that Blue Uganda had the right to challenge the fine by submitting a filing a written complaint within ten days of the receipt of the letter.  Blue Uganda submitted a timely letter challenging the fine on the grounds that it amounts to a violation of human rights and questioning the forensic analysis.  Officials from the Anti-Pornography Commission conducted a hearing on 1 November 2014 that was attended by Blue Uganda and their legal representatives.  As a result of the hearing, the fine was reduced to 400 Billion Uganda Shillings.  However, the Anti-Pornography Commission also ordered the immediate seizure of Blue Uganda’s network, offices and all other equipment located in Uganda. 

Blue Uganda is aware of similar fines and seizures that have been assessed each of the six largest Internet Service Providers in Uganda. 

On 15 November 2014 the Anti-Pornogrpahy Commission sent a letter to Blue Uganda indicating that it took ownership Blue Uganda’s network in Uganda as partial payment of the fine issued for the violation of the Anti-Pornography Act.  According to the letter Blue Uganda will receive a credit of 300 Billion Uganda Shillings for their network in Uganda leaving a balance of 100 Billion Uganda Shillings on the assessed fine.  The letter states that the Blue Uganda network is now the property of Crested Internet Services which purchased the network from the Government of Uganda for 300 Billion Uganda Shillings.

Crested Internet Services is a State owned telecommunications company launched in July of 2014.   It has quickly acquired the network capacity of the Internet Service Providers that have been the subject to fines and seizures.  At this time Crested Internet Services has become the leading internet service provider in Uganda and has the fastest and most reliable network of any provider.

The Chinese Government has provided Crest Internet Service complementary access to its Internet filtering technology and has provided a team of experts to enable Crest Internet Services to develop a filtering service that will enable Crest to successfully keep material that can violate the Anti-Pornography Act.  Most notably the filtering service will block access to all photographic images, all GIFs and all video image content.  In announcing this initiative, the Chinese foreign minister to Uganda announced “China joins Uganda in its concern over the Internet’s capacity to damage the collective will and purpose of its people though base distractions and harmful rabble rousing.  The people of China a happy to offer its expertise to Uganda as it seeks to keep the benefits offered by the Internet while limiting the Internet’s capacity for harm.”       

Spokespeople for liberal democracies around the globe have spoken out against the actions of the Ugandan Government with respect to private internet providers and the consolidation of Internet services under Crest Internet Services.  At a recent press conference in Pretoria, Secretary of State John Kerry seemed to be referring to Uganda when he asserted that ‘when governments aggressively control the channels of information and speech they cripple democracy and slouch towards despotism.’  Queen Maxima of the Netherlands decried the actions taken against Blue Uganda as ‘an unfortunate violation of the human rights of the royal family of Belgium.’ 

Officials at Blue Uganda believe that the Ugandan Government is seeking to take control of all Internet providers in order to control Internet access and communication during the time leading up to the 2016 Elections.  While they do not have any direct proof to support their beliefs they do know that all of the six largest private Internet service providers in Uganda have had their networks seized by the Ugandan government.   

Blue Uganda and Mahesh Patel have brought this petition under Article 137 of the Ugandan Constitution claiming violation of their constitutional rights.

Blue Uganda and Mahesh Patel claim the following:

There is a right to Internet Access in Uganda based on the Ugandan Constitution, applicable and binding international treaties and customary international law and the actions of the Government of Uganda amount to a violation of that right.

Provisions of the Anti-Pornography Act and the Public Order Management Act are inconsistent with or in contravention of provisions of the Uganda Constitution and the binding international instruments that inform the Constitution.

The Anti-Pornography Act as applied against Blue Uganda amounts to a violation of the Constitution of Uganda and the binding international instruments that inform the Constitution.

The Public Order Management Bill as applied against Blue Uganda amounts to a violation of the Constitution of Uganda and the binding international instruments that inform the Constitution.

Blue Uganda is also seeking compensation for the seizure of their networks, offices and equipment.

The Government of Uganda opposes all of the claims asserted above.

Text of 2014 Uganda Constitutional Moot Problem

UGANDA INTER-UNIVERSITY

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW MOOT COURT PROBLEM

Get Ready Uganda and One Other v. the Attorney General

The following case was brought under Article 137 of the Uganda Constitution.

The lead Petitioner in the Case is “Get Ready, Here I Come! Uganda” (Hereinafter “Get Ready”).  Get Ready is a Ugandan corporation and a registered Non Governmental Organisation.  Get Ready is dedicated to the promotion of the health of unborn children.

The other petitioner is Nakato Joan as legal representative of Jangu Adam.  Adam is a 7 month-old fetus that Nakato Joan is carrying.  

Get Ready Uganda has chosen not to include any born human petitioners in this case.  Some argue that Get Ready is merely using this issue as a back door means of establishing the personhood of the unborn in Uganda.  Get Ready is largely funded by the American pro-life organization Focus on the Faith.  

Get Ready filed a petition seeking the provision of folic acid to all women of childbearing age in Uganda.  Adequate folic acid intake during the preconception period (which is the time right before and just after a woman becomes pregnant) helps protect against a number of congenital malformations, including neural tube defects.  Neural tube defects are severe abnormalities of the central nervous system that develop in babies during the first few weeks of pregnancy resulting in malformations of the spine, skull, and brain; the most common neural tube defects are spina bifida and anencephaly.  The risk of neural tube defects is significantly reduced when supplemental folic acid is consumed in addition to a healthy diet before conception and during the first month after conception.   

Uganda’s Ministry of Health decided to adopt a programme for the provision of folic acid to pregnant mothers and women seeking to become pregnant in 2007.  However, every year since 2007 the budgetary allocation for folic acid has been cut.  The only folic acid provided to pregnant mothers and women seeking to become pregnant since that time has been offered through donor funds or has been purchased by individuals.  The Ministry of Health said that it has had to make the decision to cut the folic acid programme each year due to a reduction in the funds it has received from the Central Government.  It reasons that it must cut costs associated with the purchase of medicines and medical equipment because it must use all allocated funds on staff and building maintenance in order to avoid staff layoffs and to ensure proper upkeep of existing facilities.

The Petitioners assert that all of the unborn in Uganda have the right to have their mothers provided with folic acid.  This is based on an alleged right to health.  They assert that the unborn have a heightened right to government health provision as they are not in the position to provide for themselves.

Get Ready is seeking a variety of forms of relief which include the requirement that folic acid supplements be added to all flour in Uganda, that folic acid tablets be provided to all women of childbearing age, that women of child bearing age be provided with a government sponsored supplement to defray the cost of folic acid tablets, that the Ministry of Health be forced to make other budget cuts that do not directly effect health to the same extent as cutting the folic acid programme that the Ministry of Health adopted in 2007, or any other form of relief that the court can order which would improve the availability and provision of folic acid to women of child bearing age.

The Constitutional Court heard the case.  They struck down the petition.  In a one sentence holding the Constitutional Court held that the petition was barred by the political question doctrine citing their recent decision in Centre for Health Human Rights and Development (CEHURD) and Three Others v. Attorney General, Constitutional Petition No. 16 of 2011, UGCC, available at http://www.ulii.org/ug/judgment/constitutional-court/2012/4.

Get Ready filed a timely appeal with the Supreme Court of Uganda.  The Supreme Court has set the matter down for immediate oral argument along with the pending CEHURD case.   Counsel for Get Ready will argue the case for the Petitioners and the Office of the Attorney General will argue the case for the Respondent  

The Supreme Court has asked the petitioners to offer oral argument on the following issues:

1.  Are the petitioners proper parties to bring a petition under Article 137?

2.  Is there a right to health in Uganda?

3.  Is the right to health judicially enforceable?

4.  Do the unborn have a right to health in Uganda?

5.  Is the forced purchase and/or provision of folic acid a judicial remedy that the Court is empowered and authorised to grant?

Note this problem is subject to revision by the moot organizers.  This draft is dated 9 November 2014.

Announcement: Date and Location of the Uganda National Constitutional Law Moot

The National Constitutional Law Moot will take place on the 14th of February, 2014 at St. Augustine University (Kampala).

Further details regarding the day will be provided at a later date.

The Moot Programme will last the full day and will begin in the morning.

Preliminary Rules of the Uganda Constitutional Law Moot

Preliminary Rules of the 2014 Uganda Constitutional Law Moot are as follows:

1. Each University offering an LL.B. degree may enter one team consisting on two students in the moot.

2.  The two team members must be students in good standing at the University that they are representing.

3. Universities are free to use the moot problem to conduct their own inter-university moots to identify the team that will represent the university in the national round of the 2014 Uganda Constitutional Law Moot.

4. The two team members shall be designated by a faculty member of the University's school of law or law faculty who co-ordinates or supervises moot activity.  This designation should be made at least 48 hours prior to the competition.  Team designations shall be submitted to dbriandennison@gmail.com

5.  Each team member shall have up to 18 minutes to present their argument at each round of the moot for a maximum total of 36 minutes for initial submissions.  The Appellant team will be given 3 minutes for rebuttal.  The Respondent team will be given 3 minutes for surrebutal.  Surrebutal will be limited to responses to arguments proffered in rebuttal.

6. Team will be required to prepare "heads of argument" for both the Petitioner side and the Respondent side.   Heads of argument for each side shall not exceed fifteen pages in length, double space, 12 point type Times New Roman type.  Footnotes can be written in 10 point type and can be single spaced.

7.  The heads of argument should also include a title page identifying the team members and whether each of the two briefs is submitted on behalf of the Appellant or the Respondent.

8.  For an example of the heads of argument style of briefing please see the "Merits" section in the winning briefs from the 2012 African Human Rights moot that are available for download at http://www1.chr.up.ac.za/index.php/moot-documents.html

This is the Second Draft of the Preliminary Rules replacing the initial version.  These Rules remain subject to additional corrections and modification.  

2014 Uganda Constitutional Law Moot Problem

Here is the link to the 2014 Uganda Constitutional Law Moot Problem:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrZvLBJBLhwTlJzOFl2eWJzUTA/edit?usp=sharing

and here is the text of the problem:

UGANDA INTER-UNIVERSITY

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW MOOT COURT PROBLEM

Get Ready Uganda and One Other v. the Attorney General

The following case was brought under Article 137 of the Uganda Constitution.

The lead Petitioner in the Case is “Get Ready, Here I Come! Uganda” (Hereinafter “Get Ready”).  Get Ready is a Ugandan corporation and a registered Non Governmental Organisation.  Get Ready is dedicated to the promotion of the health of unborn children.

The other petitioner is Nakato Joan as legal representative of Jangu Adam.  Adam is a 7 month-old fetus that Nakato Joan is carrying.  

Get Ready Uganda has chosen not to include any born human petitioners in this case.  Some argue that Get Ready is merely using this issue as a back door means of establishing the personhood of the unborn in Uganda.  Get Ready is largely funded by the American pro-life organization Focus on the Faith.  

Get Ready filed a petition seeking the provision of folic acid to all women of childbearing age in Uganda.  Adequate folic acid intake during the preconception period (which is the time right before and just after a woman becomes pregnant) helps protect against a number of congenital malformations, including neural tube defects.  Neural tube defects are severe abnormalities of the central nervous system that develop in babies during the first few weeks of pregnancy resulting in malformations of the spine, skull, and brain; the most common neural tube defects are spina bifida and anencephaly.  The risk of neural tube defects is significantly reduced when supplemental folic acid is consumed in addition to a healthy diet before conception and during the first month after conception.   

Uganda’s Ministry of Health decided to adopt a programme for the provision of folic acid to pregnant mothers and women seeking to become pregnant in 2007.  However, every year since 2007 the budgetary allocation for folic acid has been cut.  The only folic acid provided to pregnant mothers and women seeking to become pregnant since that time has been offered through donor funds or has been purchased by individuals.  The Ministry of Health said that it has had to make the decision to cut the folic acid programme each year due to a reduction in the funds it has received from the Central Government.  It reasons that it must cut costs associated with the purchase of medicines and medical equipment because it must use all allocated funds on staff and building maintenance in order to avoid staff layoffs and to ensure proper upkeep of existing facilities.

The Petitioners assert that all of the unborn in Uganda have the right to have their mothers provided with folic acid.  This is based on an alleged right to health.  They assert that the unborn have a heightened right to government health provision as they are not in the position to provide for themselves.

Get Ready is seeking a variety of forms of relief which include the requirement that folic acid supplements be added to all flour in Uganda, that folic acid tablets be provided to all women of childbearing age, that women of child bearing age be provided with a government sponsored supplement to defray the cost of folic acid tablets, that the Ministry of Health be forced to make other budget cuts that do not directly effect health to the same extent as cutting the folic acid programme that the Ministry of Health adopted in 2007, or any other form of relief that the court can order which would improve the availability and provision of folic acid to women of child bearing age.

The Constitutional Court heard the case.  They struck down the petition.  In a one sentence holding the Constitutional Court held that the petition was barred by the political question doctrine citing their recent decision in Centre for Health Human Rights and Development (CEHURD) and Three Others v. Attorney General, Constitutional Petition No. 16 of 2011, UGCC, available at http://www.ulii.org/ug/judgment/constitutional-court/2012/4.

Get Ready filed a timely appeal with the Supreme Court of Uganda.  The Supreme Court has set the matter down for immediate oral argument along with the pending CEHURD case.   Counsel for Get Ready will argue the case for the Petitioners and the Office of the Attorney General will argue the case for the Respondent  

The Supreme Court has asked the petitioners to offer oral argument on the following issues:

1.  Are the petitioners proper parties to bring a petition under Article 137?

2.  Is there a right to health in Uganda?

3.  Is the right to health judicially enforceable?

4.  Do the unborn have a right to health in Uganda?

5.  Is the forced purchase and/or provision of folic acid a judicial remedy that the Court is empowered and authorised to grant?

Note this problem is subject to revision by the moot organizers.  This draft is dated 9 November 2014.

Announcing the 2014 Uganda Constitutional Law Moot

Uganda is home to a growing number of law schools and law students.  Presently these students have limited opportunities to compete in moot court competitions.  The Uganda Intra-University Constitutional Law Moot would add a much-needed annual moot in a key legal area of appellate practice in the Ugandan context.

National mooting opportunities are limited in Uganda.  The only annual moot with wide participation among Ugandan law schools is the International Humanitarian Law Moot conducted by the ICRC.  Other organizations such as ALIPU and UCLF have staged notional moots from time to time, but these moots are not broadly attended regularly occurring events.  Also, while there are a relatively large number of opportunities to compete in international moot competitions, these moots are often too expensive and time consuming for most Ugandan law schools to take part in.

In addition, none of the current inter-university mooting opportunities in Uganda focus on the Constitution.  This is the case despite the fact that constitutional law is arguably the most important field of law in the context of appellate legal work in Uganda.

In the hope of meeting the needs listed above we have decided to launch Uganda's National Constitutional Law Moot!

All of Uganda's law schools are welcome to enter a single team of two student competitors in the competition.  The full rules for the competition will be provided on a subsequent post on this blog.

We are releasing the 2014 moot problems so that the Universities with law schools and law faculties can stage their own internal competitions in order to identify a team to represent their University. Universities are also free to come up with some alternative means for naming their team, but it is our hope that most Universities will stage their own internal moots in the spirit of learning and competition.

We hope to stage the moot in February of 2014.  The exact date and the location of the internal moot will be posted soon.

The present moot organising committee for the moot includes representatives from Makerere's School of Law, Uganda Christian University's Faculty of Law and CEHURD.   We are looking forward to bringing in more partners to the process of planning, staging and conducting the moot.

We hope you will be interested in seeing the Uganda Constitutional Law Moot become a successful annual event on Uganda's legal education landscape.