LAW AND DEVELOPMENT COURSEWORK

“That with the era of this 21st century and constitutionality provides and
references, everyone or any Ugandan citizen has the right of speech, press and
media (mass) are typically inherent and equally enforceable. Please publish
document and utter everything, attack the National Resistance Movement (NRM)
and her institutions and other characters, states and positions in the country. This
is what NRM ushered in its 10 point programme of the bush war.”
Critically discuss the veracity and authenticity of this statement in the letters of
law and development.

NAME: JJINGO SAMUEL

STUDENT NUMBER: 2300103592
Law is the set of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as
regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition
of penalties.
Development is an event constituting a new stage in a changing situation.
There are different stages of development for instance economic growth and
development where you can assess the qualitative and quantitave production of
economic goods and services in one period of time compared with a previous
period. Major indicators of economic growth and development may include;
 Natural resources.
 Power and energy resources.
 Capital accumulation.
 Technological resources.
 Available labor force.
 Transportation and communications.
 Education and training
 Political stability
 .

Law and development is an interdisciplinary study of law, economic and social

development. It examines the relation between law, development and analyzes
how to use law as an instrument to promote economic development, democracy
and human rights.

Ten-Point Programme of
NRM
First published in 1984 by
NRM Publications
The National Resistance Council of the National Resistance Movement, together
with the High Command and Senior Officers of the National Resistance Army
(NRA) under the chairmanship of President Yoweri Museveni, have worked out
proposals for a political programme that could form a basis for a nationwide
coalition of political and social forces that could usher in a new and better future
for the long-suffering people of Uganda. This proposal is now popularly known as
the TEN-POINT PROGRAMME.
These are the same reasons which explain the causes of the NRM revolution or
the reasons why Museveni went to the bush.

1. Promotion of democracy. By promoting parliamentary and popular democracy

through local councils (LCs).
2. Promotion of security for all people and their property to eliminate state
instigated violence.
3. Consolidation of national unity and elimination of all forms of sectarianism.
4. Defending and consolidating national independence in order to determine the
future of our economic policies, culture and diplomacy.
5. Building an independent, integrated and self sustaining national economy. This
was to be done through:
Diversifying agriculture
Building industries in the import substitution sector
Aggressive industrialisation
Construction of basic industries
Acquiring computer technology
Avoidance of the dependence on others

6. Restoration and improvement of social services and rehabilitation of the war-

ravaged areas.
7. Elimination of corruption and misuse of power.
8. Redressing errors that have resulted into the dislocation of sections of the
population and improvement of others through:

Settling people that have been displaced by ill thought development projects or
sheer illegal land grabbing.
Settling the Karamojong
Relieving the plight of salary earners.
9. Co-operation with other African countries in defending human and democratic
rights of our brothers in other parts of Africa.
10. Following an economic strategy of the mixed economy.

The Movement Conference which took place in Jinja in July 1999 came up with
five more points to add to the ten and made it a fifteen-point-programme. The
following are the five new points.
• Financing of public infrastructure using internal borrowing and creation of
employment in the country.
• Focused human resource development and capacity building in the technical
and service sector.
• Preservation and development of our culture.
• Consolidation of programmes, which are responsive to gender and
marginalised groups.
• Environmental management and protection.
The past regimes of Obote and Amin would not tolerate freedom of speech as
whoever criticized them, they stood a risk of losing their lives or incapacitation for
instance, Obote attacked the Palace of Ssekabaka Muteesa II which followed the
abolishment of kingdoms in Uganda because the Mengo Government had
criticized wrongs in Obote’s regime.
The murder of the late Archbishop Janaan Luwuum by the Amin regime for being
outspoken on issues regarding human rights violations.
The kidnapping of Chief Justice Bendicto Kiwanuka by the Amin regime is
something that cannot skip our eyes.
The censorship of the press by Amin’s regime of 1971 to 1979. This was exhibited
through a Newspaper and Publication (Amendment) Decree No 35 of 1972 that
permitted the Minister of Information to prohibit the publication of any
newspapers for an indefinite period until satisfied that it was published in public
interest. This resulted into the deprivation of freedoms of expression like the
banning of the Ngabo Newspaper and the subsequent disappearance of its editor.
How the NRM Government has brought about freedom of speech;
Article 29 (1)(a) and (b) provides that every person has a right to: The freedom of
speech and expression which shall include the freedom of the press and other
media. The freedom of thought, conscience and belief, which SHALL include
academic freedom in institutions of learning.
Article 29(1)(d) and (e) provide that: Every person shall have a right to freedom to
assemble and to demonstrate together with others peacefully and unarmed, and
to petition.
Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or
community to air out their opinions, ideas without fear of censorship or legal
sanctions. It is a fundamental human right that allows individuals to express their
opinions ideas and beliefs without fear of government censorship or punishment.
The NRM Government has promoted the freedom of speech and expression in
areas like constitutional framework that is to say the 1995 constitution
guarantees the freedom of speech and expression which provides a legal
foundation to express their opinions and access information.
The NRM Government has let the evolution of civil society organisations leading
them to thrive as they advocate for human rights through occasional public
debates and awareness. Such platforms include; Chapter Four Uganda, Civil
Space, CCEDU
The NRM Government has not censored some public and viral public TV and radio
talk shows which hold national debates discussing and propagating ills about the
regime. A case in point are renown talk shows that include ‘’The Barometer’’ on
NBS, ‘’On The Spot’’ on NTV, ‘’The Frontline’’ on NBS, ‘’Palamenti Yaffe’’ on CBS,
all of which invite opposition and government critics who occasionally attack the
government.
Many propagandists who speak ill about the government have continued to live
unlike in the past regimes like those of Obote and Amin. Examples include the late
Tamale Mirundi, Hon. Ssemujju Nganda etc
Drawing of critical cartoons of the President, HE Yoweri Tibuhaburwa Museveni
has not been censored by the regime as many cartoonists like Jim Spire
Ssentongo, Chris Atukwasize Ogon have continued to live and ripping big from
their cartoon businesses that are published in newspapers.
There has been freedom of speech in religious institutions for instance in the
mosques as many religious clerics have come out boldly to criticize the actions of
the government and have thereby declared support openly for opposition cadres
for instance the late Sheikh Nuhu Muzaata Mbogo.
The role of Parliament and its proceedings. The Members of Parliament are now
free to pin out and table issues that depict weaknesses of the regime at the floor
of Parliament without any hesitation.
However, Ugandan citizens have also abused freedom of expression through
different ways;
The most recent was the viral and outspoken Ibrahim Musana who has been using
social media platforms of TikTok, Facebook etc to attack the person of the Kabaka
of Buganda, something that derogates human societal behaviours and also
infringes on the rights of the Kabaka as a person. Musana was apprehended by
the security agencies and paraded in the courts thereby serving a sentence in
Kitalya Prisons. He pleaded mercy for reinstatement and owned up his
statements.
The infamous diaspora blogger Fred Kajjubi Lumbuye has left many people in the
government and public service suffering from the wrath of his harsh propaganda
machinations.
The attacks of the National Unity Platform on the institution of the Kingdom of
Buganda.

The Constitutional Court of Uganda held that section 179 of the Penal Code
criminalizing libel was not contrary to the right to freedom of expression
guaranteed under Articles 29 and 43 of the Constitution.
Four Ugandan journalists with the Daily Monitor Newspaper brought the
constitutional challenge following charges brought against them for the unlawful
publication of defamatory material in articles concerning Faith Mwondha, the
Inspector General of Government.
The Court reasoned that the protection of one’s reputation was a matter of public
interest because an individual is a member of the public and renders service to
the public. It follows, the Court said, that the protection of one’s reputation
justified restrictions on freedom of expression. It reasoned further that criminal
sanctions were justified because those who deliberately publish lies intending to
damage a person’s reputation commit an egregious act, comparable to acts of
assault, fraud, even murder and manslaughter and should be punished.
Joachim Buwembo, Bernard Tabaire, Emmanuel Davies Gyezaho, and Mukasa
Robert (Applicants) were professional journalists with the Daily Monitor
Newspaper, Uganda’s leading independent newspaper. In August 2007, they
contributed to the publication of two articles about a scandal surrounding
Inspector General Faith Mwondha. Following her complaint to the police, the
Applicants were arrested and charged with the offence of unlawful publication of
defamatory matter under sections 179 and 22 of the Penal Code Act. Section 179
provides:
“Any person who, by print, writing, painting, effigy or by any means
otherwise than solely by gesture, spoken words or other sound, unlawfully
publishes any defamatory matter concerning another person, with intent to
defame that other person commits a misdemeanor termed libel.” [p. 11]
During the criminal proceedings, the Applicants petitioned the Constitutional
Court of Uganda to address the constitutionality of section 179, arguing that the
criminalization of libel is inconsistent with Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution,
which recognizes freedom of expression, including a free press, as a fundamental
right. They also argued that the impugned criminal provision could not be
considered as a lawful means of restricting free speech under Article 43 of the
Constitution because the criminalization of a defamatory writing doesn’t protect
any known freedom of any person other than the reputation of the complainant,
nor does it concern public interest because defamation is a tort and it affects the
complainant individually – an action in defamation dies with the person defamed.
Decision Overview
To address the constitutionality of section 179 of the Penal Code, the Court began
its analysis by examining whether or not the provision fell within the permissible
restrictions on derogatory rights under Article 43 of the Constitution, which
provides that “[i]n the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms, no person shall
prejudice the fundamental or other human rights and freedoms of others or the
public interest.”
Drawing on Uganda’s case law, the Court affirmed that the right to freedom of
expression can be limited to protect other competing fundamental rights
including public interest, State security, and sovereignty. The Court went on to
say that the test to assess reasonableness of such limitations is “an objective one”
and its application must be considered “within the context of the subject matter
or circumstances of each case.”
The Court then proceeded to address whether any public interest is served by the
underlying objective of criminal defamation laws, namely the protection of one’s
reputation. As Article 43 of the Constitution does not define “public interest,” the
Court took judicial notice of the definition by Black’s Law Dictionary. It defines as
“[s]omething in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary
interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.” It
was also the Court’s view that reputation itself has two embedded rights: “the
right of an individual to have his reputation protected by law, and secondly, the
public interest embedded in the individual’s reputation by virtue of the fact that
the individual is a member of the public and renders service to the public.”
In addition, the Court held that although the Constitution does not make an
explicit reference to reputation, its importance is implied by necessity under
Article 45 of the Constitution, pursuant to which,
“[t]he rights, duties, declarations and guarantees relating to the fundamental and
other human rights and freedoms specifically mentioned in this Chapter shall not
be regarded as excluding others not specifically mentioned.”
Having concluded that the reputation of persons is constitutionally protected
under Articles 43 and 45, the Court addressed whether section 179 showed “any
kind of arbitrary restriction to the freedom of expression.” [p. 14] In doing so, the
Court considered the following factors set out by the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe
in Mark Gova v. Minister of Home Affairs, S.C. 36/2000: Civil Appeal No. 156/99:
The legislative objective which the limitation is designed to promote must be
sufficiently important to warrant overriding the fundamental right;
The measures designed to meet the objectives must be rationally connected to it
and not arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations; and
The means used to impair the right or freedom must be no more than necessary
to accomplish the objective.
The justices first emphasized “the importance of the reputation of a person to the
public” by referring to several Canadian judicial decisions that highlight the
integral link between one’s reputation and his or her participation in Canadian
society.
As to whether criminal imposition is a justifiable means of protecting the public
reputation of an individual, the Court rejected the applicants’ argument that the
civil remedies of monetary damages and injunctions were adequate and punitive
criminal sanctions were unnecessary. The justices were of the view that “while
the victims of such wrongs may well deserve to be compensated, perpetrators
who willfully and knowingly publish lies calculated to damage the public
reputation of a member of a democratic society ought to be punished.”
Furthermore, the Court deemed libel as an egregious act, similar to acts of
assault, sexual assault, fraud, even murder and manslaughter, adding that the
existence of criminal sanctions for such offenses, which are also considered
tortious, “ensures that those who commit acts society has deemed egregious are
properly punished.”
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court unanimously upheld section 179 as
constitutional. According to the justices, to do otherwise, would mean that the
right of freedom of expression was unlimited which would contravene Article 43
of the Constitution. The Court, therefore, dismissed the petition in its entirety and
ordered the continuation of the criminal proceedings.