Uganda

CRIN would like to express our profound gratitude to our external reviewer for their insightful comments on a draft of this report. CRIN also sent a draft version to the State for feedback and any comments received were taken into account in finalising the report. Any errors or inaccuracies remaining in the report are CRIN’s.

This report is provided for educational and informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. CRIN does not accept liability for any loss, damage, cost or expense incurred or arising by reason of any person using or relying on information in this report. CRIN encourages personal and educational use of this publication and grants permission for its reproduction in this capacity where proper credit is given in good faith.

All CRIN content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial No Derivatives 4.0 licence. No material produced by CRIN may be modified unless consent is given in writing. No material produced by CRIN may be re-used for commercial gain unless consent is given in writing.

I. National legal protections

A. Are environmental rights protected within the national constitution?

Environmental rights are protected in the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda (the “Constitution”) as set out below.

In the National Objectives and Directive of State Policy of the Constitution, the State is tasked to “protect important resources including land, water, wetlands, minerals, oil, fauna and flora on behalf of the people of Uganda”.1 Environmental protections are also enshrined under Article 39 of the Constitution, which provides every Ugandan citizen with the right to a clean and healthy environment. This right is recognised as a fundamental right together with other civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights enshrined in Chapter 4 of the Constitution.2 Under Article 34(4), children are, in particular, entitled to be protected from social or economic exploitation and shall not be employed or required to perform work which is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with their education or to be harmful to their health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development.3

In addition, Chapter 15 of the Constitution sets out the responsibilities of Parliament in relation to the environment. In particular, Article 245 provides that Parliament “shall by law, provide for measures intended –

  • (a) to protect and preserve the environment from abuse, pollution and degradation;
  • (b) to manage the environment for sustainable development; and
  • (c) to promote environment awareness.”4

Finally, under Article 17(j) (Duties of a citizen), the Constitution states that “it is the duty of every citizen of Uganda […] to create and protect a clean and healthy environment.”5

B. Have constitutional rights protections been applied by national courts with regards to environmental issues?

The Ugandan Courts are often called to opine on issues of constitutional interpretation and application of rights. The powers of the courts are enshrined in Article 50 which allows any person aggrieved by a violation of the rights contained in the Constitution to approach the courts for redress. Article 137 also empowers the Court to interpret the Constitution and make declarations. It is on the basis of these provisions that the constitutional rights with regards to environmental issues and protection in particular have also been litigated before the Ugandan Courts. The case-law is still developing though. Examples of several key decisions are set out in chronological order below:

Greenwatch vs Attorney General and NEMA [2002] UGHC 205 (Misc. Cause No. 140 of 2002 – Civil Division)6

Greenwatch brought an application seeking an order banning the manufacture, use, distribution and sale of plastic bags and plastic containers of less than 100 microns. Two issues were to be determined by the High Court: (i) whether the use, manufacture and distribution of polythene bags of more than 30 microns constitute a danger to the environment and in turn violate the rights of the citizens of Uganda to a clean and healthy environment; and (ii) whether the plaintiff was entitled to the orders and remedies sought.

The Court declared “that the manufacture, distribution, use, sale, sell disposal of plastic bags, plastic containers, plastic food wrappers, and all other forms of plastic commonly referred to as “kaveera” violates the rights of citizens of Uganda to a clean and healthy environment as acknowledged by both parties.”7 However, the Court was unable to order the relief sought by Greenwatch (banning the manufacture and sale of plastics, regulating the use and disposal of plastics and implementing an environment restoration order) as all required a change in law, which was the role of Parliament rather than the Courts. Instead, the Court observed that the orders sought by Greenwatch required “expeditious consideration” by Parliament and expressed a hope that these issues would be addressed.

British American Tobacco Limited v Environmental Action Network Ltd (Civil Application No. 27/2003)8

An application was brought before the High Court alleging that British American Tobacco, as a manufacturer of a dangerous product, was under a legal duty to warn customers of the dangers and risks associated with its product. In relation to the issue of public interest groups bringing actions on behalf of groups, the Court held that the Constitution “does recognise the existence of the needy and oppressed persons and therefore it allows actions of public interest groups to be brought on their behalf”. The Court also discussed how public interest proceedings may be brought under Article 50, in combination with Article 273, of the Constitution. However, despite making these findings of general interest, the Court dismissed the application in this case for a lack of detailed particulars, also commenting that the orders sought were not a matter for the Courts to determine.

Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 0100 of 2004)9

This case involved the Butamira Forest Reserve which was leased to Kakira Sugar Works in 1939. Despite holding a lease over the land, Kakira Sugar Works was denied the right to change the use of the land from forest to plantation. Eventually, in 1997, Kakira Sugar Works was granted a permit giving the company the right to use the reserve for general purposes. Without undertaking an Environmental Impact Assessment, Kakira Sugar Works began to clear the reserve and replaced it with sugar cane plantations. In response, the local community, which depended on the reserve as a source of water and other products, formed a pressure group in protest. A Parliamentary Committee was established and found that the permit had been fraudulently obtained and recommended that it be revoked. However, following a motion by a government minister, the Ugandan Parliament passed a motion allowing Kakira Sugar Works to continue the project. An action was brought before the Courts on behalf of the Butamira community.

In its judgement, the High Court took the opportunity to make a general statement on the scope of environmental law and policy noting: “[t]here is no doubt that environmental law must be seen within the entire political, social, cultural and economic setting of the country and must be geared towards development vision. In other words, it must act as an aid to socio-economic development rather than a hindrance.” In accordance with Article 50 of the Ugandan Constitution, the Court held that the petitioners had standing to bring the action on behalf of the people of the Butamira community and other citizens of Uganda.

The High Court also held that there was a breach of public trust and that the reserve is land “which the government holds in trust for the people of Uganda to be protected for the common good of the citizens. Government has no authority to lease out or otherwise alienate it. However, the Government or a local government may grant concessions or licences or permits in respect of land held under trust with authority from parliament and with consent from the local community in the area or district where the reserved land is situated.”

Nyakaana v NEMA, Attorney General & Ors [2015] UGSC (Constitutional Appeal No. 05 of 2011)10

In a landmark Supreme Court decision, the Court weighed the importance of environmental protection rights against individual property rights, ultimately choosing to raise the bar on environmental protections. The appellant had been issued a lease and obtained planning permission to build a residence in a wetland area. However, in 2004, the National Environment Management Authority (“NEMA”) issued a “restoration order” directing the appellant to demolish his house within 21 days of the order. When the appellant failed to comply, the order was enforced and the house was demolished. Following this action, the appellant brought an action against the NEMA on the basis that the restoration order was unconstitutional. He argued that enforcement of the order had been a breach of his right to a fair hearing enshrined under Sub-Article 28(1) and Articles 42 and 44 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Constitutional Court dismissing the appellant’s complaint. It held that the National Environment Act had in-built processes available for citizens to appeal a restoration order thus protecting the constitutional right to a fair hearing. More importantly, however, the Supreme Court also took this opportunity to confirm that the fundamental environmental protection of the “Polluter Pays Principle” (i.e. that it is the polluter who must pay for the damage done to the environment and to the victims of the pollution)11 and the “Precautionary Principle” (i.e. that a lack of scientific certainty should not be used to postpone action to protect the environment)12 were a part of Ugandan law. This confirmation made this a landmark decision in Ugandan environmental law and protection jurisprudence.

C. Has the concept of intergenerational equity been applied within national courts? If yes, in what circumstances?

From the sources researched for the purpose of preparing this report, the national Courts of Uganda have yet to apply the concept of intergenerational equity. However, in 2012, a case was brought on behalf of four Ugandan minors (Mbabazi & Ors v Attorney General)13 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Ugandan government. In their complaint, the plaintiffs argued that the government of Uganda was in breach of Article 39 and Article 237 of the Constitution.

The plaintiffs alleged that government inaction in response to climate change was responsible for “loss of life, property, livelihoods and social and political discontent”.14 They further argued that the government’s inaction was causing harm and suffering to the people of Uganda. The plaintiffs sought orders to compel Ugandan agencies to enforce the terms of international climate treaties, develop a climate mitigation plan and to protect Ugandan children from the adverse impacts of climate change.

A preliminary hearing on the issues was heard by the High Court in 2014 and adjourned to allow the parties to participate in mediation proceedings which were to be concluded in 90 days. In August 2015, the plaintiffs filed an “Amended Plaint” adding NEMA as a defendant to the action.15 At the date of this report, it is believed that proceedings are still ongoing with the last public update reporting a hearing being scheduled for 14 May 2019.16

D. What legislation is in place to regulate environmental protection? Are there any proposals for legal reforms currently under review in the national legislature?

The primary framework regulating environmental management in Uganda is the National Environment Act (“NEA 1995”).17 In 2019, the government enacted the National Environment Act 2019 (the “NEA 2019”) which will repeal and replace the NEA 1995.18 The NEA 2019 will come into force on a date which is to be appointed by the Minister by statutory instrument.19 Accordingly, at present, the NEA 1995 is still in force and is the primary reference legislation, although the NEA 2019 is also relevant when considering environmental protection and regulation in Uganda given its future implementation. Accordingly, both the NEA 1995 and the NEA 2019 are referenced below.

The main objective of both the NEA 1995 and the NEA 2019 is to provide for the management of the environment for sustainable development and, in the case of the NEA 2019, to address emerging environmental issues such as climate change, the management of hazardous chemicals and environmental concerns arising out of petroleum activities. The NEA 2019 also creates new offences related to the environment and stronger penalties for breaches of protections (discussed in more detail at Section II.A below), as well as providing for the future establishment of an enforcement authority known as the “Environment Protection Force”.

Despite the NEA 1995 being the primary framework protecting environmental concerns in Uganda, there is other relevant legislation regulating the area, briefly summarised below:

  • Uganda Wildlife Act, 1 August 199620 – the purpose of this Act is to promote “the conservation of wildlife throughout Uganda so that the abundance and diversity of their species are maintained at optimum levels commensurate with other forms of land use […]”.
  • The Mining Act, 21 July 200321 – legislation regulating mining and mineral development in Uganda. The legislation vests control of all minerals in Uganda in the Government and also legislates for the acquisition of mineral rights and other related matters.
  • National Forestry and Tree Planting Act22, 8 August 2003 – legislation providing for the conservation, sustainable management, use and development of Ugandan forests for the benefit of Ugandan citizens.
  • Petroleum (Exploration, Development and Production) Act, 21 July 2013 – legislation affecting Article 244 of the Constitution which regulates petroleum exploration, development and production and the participation and licensing of commercial entities in petroleum activities.

E. Is there any specific national policy addressing childhood exposure to toxic substances? If so, what is considered a safe level of exposure and what is the process for determining safe levels of exposure?

The effectiveness of Government policy and legislation protecting persons and the environment from hazardous consumer products has historically been criticised by civil societies in Uganda.23 In a report commissioned by the Ugandan National Association of Professional Environmentalists (“NAPE”), it was concluded that:

“Legislation on the importation and use of chemicals is not explicit and largely fragmented such that extremely dangerous chemicals have found their way into the country without corresponding checks. The invasion of dangerous chemicals has therefore occurred without corresponding management to minimise the risks.”24

The report also found gender disparities in the exposure to toxic or harmful chemicals with children and women forming the two most vulnerable groups.25 In particular, children have been identified as the most common victims of accidental poisoning exposure.26

The NEA 2019 sets out a framework for the management of chemicals and products (Sections 70 to 77) placing certain prohibitions and restrictions on hazardous materials and creating a management framework for containing such chemicals. However, the framework does not include provisions relating to child protections specifically and is yet to come into force, as noted in Section D above.

F. Is the country equipped with pollutant release and transfer registers? If yes, do these registers take into account child specific factors regarding the substances for which data is gathered and the type of data generated?

The sources used for the purpose of creating this report did not refer to pollutant release and transfer registers nor were the authors of this report able to find any proposals for future plans to implement these measures.

G. Does the State assert extra-territorial jurisdiction for any environmental issues?

In the case law, legislation and other sources used for the purpose of creating this report, there has been no indication that the state of Uganda has attempted to assert extra-territorial jurisdiction for any environmental issues.

 
 

II. Accessing courts

A. How can environmental cases be brought before national courts?

In order to understand how environmental cases can be brought before the Ugandan Courts, it is first necessary to explain Uganda’s Court structure. Uganda’s Court system is established by the Constitution, which sets out the organisation and hierarchy of the Courts.27 The Supreme Court is the highest and final appellate Court in Uganda.28 Below is the Court of Appeal, which sits as an appellate Court for all disputes arising from the High Court of Uganda.29 It is not a Court of first instance and has no originating jurisdiction, except where it sits as a Constitutional Court with the mandate to interpret the Constitution of Uganda.30

The High Court has unlimited jurisdiction. Accordingly, it can consider any subject matter as conferred on it by the Constitution or any other law.31 The Magistrates’ Court sits below the High Court. The Magistrates’ Court handles the majority of civil and criminal cases in Uganda.32

Constitutional Routes

As noted in Section A above, Article 39 of the Constitution provides that “[e]very Ugandan has a right to a clean and healthy environment.” Further, Article 245 of the Constitution provides that Parliament shall, by law, provide for the following measures: (i) measures intended to protect and preserve the environment from abuse, pollution and degradation; (ii) measures to manage the environment for sustainable development; and (iii) measures to promote environmental awareness.

Pursuant to Article 50(1) of the Constitution: “[a]ny person who claims that a fundamental or other right or freedom guaranteed under this Constitution has been infringed or threatened, is entitled to apply to a competent Court for redress which may include compensation.” In addition, Article 50(2) provides that “[a]ny person or organisation may bring an action against the violation of another person’s or group’s human rights.”

In 2019, the Parliament passed the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act (“HREA”), which gave effect to Article 50(4) of the Constitution. Article 50(4) provides that “parliament shall make laws for the enforcement of the rights and freedoms under this Chapter”. The HREA provides for a procedure for the enforcement of the human rights guaranteed under the Constitution, including the right to a clean and healthy environment.33 Pursuant to section 3 HREA, any person or organisation whose rights protected under the Constitutions have been infringed or threatened can institute court proceedings. This includes environmental cases which engage human rights guaranteed under the Chapter Four of the Constitution.

The Constitution also states that any person alleging that: “(a) an Act of Parliament or any other law, or anything done under the authority of any law is inconsistent with or in contravention of a provision of the Constitution, or (b) any act or omission by any person or authority is inconsistent with or in contravention of a provision of the Constitution, may petition to the Constitutional Court for a declaration to that effect, and for redress where appropriate.”34 As such, where environmental rights provided for by the Constitution have been breached by any person or authority, or any statute is inconsistent with such rights, a petition may be made to the Court of Appeal, sitting as the Constitutional Court.

Civil proceedings

Section 3 of the NEA 1995 provides that “[e]very person has a right to a healthy environment” and that “[e]very person has a duty to maintain and enhance the environment, including the duty to inform the authority or the local environment committee of all activities and phenomena that may affect the environment significantly.”35 To further the right to a healthy environment and enforce the duty to maintain and enhance the environment, NEMA or the local environment committee has the right to bring an action against any person whose activities or omissions have or are likely to have a significant impact on the environment.36

When in force, the NEA 2019 will extend statutory environmental rights and thus increase the provisions under which environmental cases can be litigated in front of the Courts.37 section 3(1) of the NEA 2019 provides that “[e]very person in Uganda has a right to a clean and healthy environment with the Constitution and the principles of sustainable development.” Further, section 3(2) provides that “[e]very person has a duty to create, maintain and enhance the environment, including the duty to prevent pollution.” Section 3(3) provides that “[a] person may, where the right referred to in subsection (1) is threatened as a result of an act or omission by any person which has or is likely to cause harm to human health or the environment or in enforcement of the duty referred to in subsection (2), file a civil suit against the person whose act or omission has or is likely to cause harm to human health or the environment.” As per Subsection 3(4) “a person proceeding under subsection (3) may file a civil suit notwithstanding that the person cannot prove that the act or omission of another person has caused or is likely to cause personal harm or injury.”38

Further, section 4(1) of the NEA 2019 will provide, when brought into force, that nature has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structures, functions and its process in evolution. Subsection 4(2) will provide that a person has a right to bring an action before a competent Court for any infringement of the rights of nature under the NEA 2019.

The Civil Procedure Act 1929 and the Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”) govern civil proceedings in Uganda. Section 5 of the Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 71 of the Laws of Uganda) states that any Court (meaning the High Court or Magistrates’ Court) shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature, except suits for which it is either expressly or impliedly barred.39 As such, the High Court and Magistrates’ Court have jurisdiction to hear civil environmental cases. The procedure for commencing a suit is set out in the CPR.40

Criminal Proceedings

The NEA 1995 contains a list of offences under Part XIII. In addition, once in force, the NEA 2019 will create new offences and further enhance the penalties and fines that were available under the NEA 1995. For example, Subsection 53(6) of the NEA 2019 will provide that “[s]ubject to subsections (3) and (5), a person shall not undertake activities in the protected zones along riverbanks, lakeshores and natural beaches.” A person who contravenes Subsection 6 will commit an offence under the NEA 2019 and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding thirty thousand currency points or imprisonment not exceeding 12 years, or both.41 Further, Section 97 of the NEA 2019 will provide that a person who deposits hazardous waste on his or her premises or on private property, a public street, roadside, or in a ditch, river, stream, lake, pond, canal, channel, park, gulch, ravine, excavation, or other place commits the offence of aggravated littering and is liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding five thousand currency points or imprisonment not exceeding ten years, or both.42 For a full list of offences under the NEA 2019, see Sections 152 to 170.43

Criminal proceedings may be instigated in Uganda in one of the following ways: (i) by a police officer bringing a person arrested with or without a warrant before a magistrates upon a charge;44 (ii) by a public prosecutor or a public officer laying a charge against a person before a magistrate and requesting the issue of a warrant or a summons;45 or (iii), by any person other than a public prosecutor or a police officer making a complaint and applying for the issue of a warrant or a summons.46

Therefore, any person, other than a public prosecutor or a police officer, who has reasonable and probable cause to believe that an environmental offence has been committed by a person, may lodge a complaint related to the alleged offence to a magistrate.47 Every such complaint may be made orally or in writing signed by the complainant, but if made orally it will be reduced into writing by the magistrate and then signed by the complainant.48 The magistrate must be satisfied that the commission of the offence has been disclosed, and that the complaint is not frivolous or vexatious.49 If satisfied, criminal proceedings for environmental matters will be heard in either the Magistrates’ Court or the High Court.

B. What rules of standing apply in environmental cases?

Individuals

By virtue of Article 50 of the Constitution and section 3 of the HREA, individuals have the right to bring a claim relating to environmental harm where a constitutional right has been breached.50 Court proceedings can also be instituted by “(a) a person acting on behalf of another person who cannot act in their own name; [as well as] (c) a person acting in public interest”.51

Article 137 of the Constitution also allows individuals to bring cases on questions regarding the interpretation of the Constitution, which can encompass environmental cases.

Under the NEA 1995, individuals have no locus standi; only the NEMA or the local environment committees are entitled to bring an action against a person whose activities or omissions have a significant impact on the environment.52 Where an individual’s right to a healthy environment (Section 3 of the NEA 1995) is violated, the only recourse available to that person under the NEA 1995 would be for them to inform the NEMA or the local environment committee of the violation.53 It would then be up to the NEMA or the local environment committee to decide whether to take the matter further. However, when the NEA 2019 comes into force, individuals may file a civil suit against any person whose act or omission has caused or is likely to cause harm to human health or the environment.54 An individual may also bring an action before a competent Court for any infringement of the rights of nature under the NEA 2019.55

Groups of Individuals

Groups of individuals have the right to bring public interest litigation for cases relating to environmental harm. Article 50 of the Constitution provides that “any person or organisation may bring an action against the violation of another person’s or group’s human rights.”56 Section 3(2)(b) of the HREA allows for human rights proceedings to be brought by “a person acting as a member of, or in the interest of a group or class of persons”.

For civil suits, Rule 8 of the CPR provides that “[w]here there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit, one or more of such persons may, with the permission of the Court, sue or be sued, or may defend in such suit, on behalf of or for the benefit of all persons so interested. But the Court shall in such case give notice of the institution of the suit to all persons either by personal service or, where from the number of persons or any other cause, such service is not reasonably practicable, by public advertisement, as the Court in each case may direct.”57

Organisations

Articles 50(2) and 137(3) of the Constitution and section 3(1) of the HREA provide that organisations, such as an NGO, could bring a case relating to environmental harm.58 Section 3(2)(d) of the HREA also allows for human rights proceedings to be brought by “an association acting in the interest of one or more of its members”.

Section 3 of the NEA 1995 provides that the NEMA or local environment committees are entitled to bring an action against any other person whose activities or omissions have or are likely to have a significant impact on the environment.59 As per Subsection 3(4) of the NEA 1995, the NEMA “or the local environment committee proceeding under subsection (3) is entitled to bring an action notwithstanding that the person cannot show that the defendant’s act or omission has caused or is likely to cause any personal loss or injury.”60

C. Do these rules of standing differ when children are the complainants and if so in what way?

A child is a person below the age of eighteen years.61 The CPR provides that every suit by a minor shall be instigated in their name by a person who in the suit shall be called the ‘next friend’ of the minor.62 Provided that the interest of the person is not adverse than that of the minor, then any person of “sound mind [who] has attained majority” (i.e. is 18 years old or more) may be appointed as a ‘next friend’ of a minor as their guardian.63 The ‘next friend’ has a moral duty to ensure that the interests of the child are fully and properly protected in the suit.64 For civil suits, children must therefore ensure that environmental cases are instigated by the ‘next friend’ of the child.

For criminal cases, the authors of this report have been unable to find any information which suggests that a child/minor cannot make a complaint of an alleged environmental offence to a magistrate where that child/minor has reasonable and probable cause to believe that an environmental offence has been committed by a person.65

For constitutional cases, while children cannot proceed on their own, any interested person under Articles 50 and 137 of the Constitution may institute proceedings without going through the 'next friend' procedure.

Furthermore, there is no mention of children or minors in the NEA 1995 or NEA 2019.

D. What is the burden and standard of proof for allegations of personal injury as a result of toxic exposure?

Uganda was a protectorate of the United Kingdom between 1894 and 1962. In 1902, an Order-in-Council was passed which applied all existing laws prevailing in the United Kingdom at the time into Ugandan law. As a result, the common law rules of England and Wales came to apply in Uganda, and continue to remain a prominent part of Uganda’s legal system. As such, English common law rules assist in understanding any liability question relating to environmental matters in Uganda.66

According to the Evidence Act, the general principles (Sections 101-106) governing the burden of proof provide that the burden of proof rests on the person asserting the infringement of a right or the liability of another party, except if another existing law provides otherwise. Thus, in civil cases, the claimant must prove their allegations. In criminal matters, the Constitution (Article 28) provides that the prosecution has the burden of proof. As to the standard of proof, in civil cases it is on a balance of probabilities.67, with the interested party having to prove that what they allege is more probable than it is not, whereas in criminal cases, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.68

Protection for individuals in Uganda has evolved from fault-based reparations of damage or injury through the law of tort, particularly through liability for negligence.69 As such, where an individual has suffered personal injury as a result of toxic exposure through negligence, it is likely that they will have to establish the following to prove their case: (i) that there was a duty of care; (ii) that there had been a breach of the standard of care imposed under the duty of care; and (iii) that they suffered damage as a result of the breach.70

Although there is limited mention of toxic exposure in the statutory framework, Section 52 of the NEA 1995 establishes a statutory duty on every person to manage any waste generated by his or her activities (or the activities of persons working under his or her direction) in such a manner that he or she does not cause ill health to the person or damage to the environment. Toxic waste would be deemed ‘waste’ for the purpose of Section 52.

E. What limitation periods apply in environmental cases?

In Uganda, the Limitation Act 1959 provides the time periods during which actions must be brought before the Courts. Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1959 provides that actions founded on contract or tort cannot be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action arose. In cases where the damages claimed for negligence, nuisance or breach of duty consist of or include damages in respect of personal injuries to any person, the claim must be brought within three years.71 Subsection 3(1) of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Chapter 72, 1969) provides that “[n]o action founded on tort shall be brought against the Government; a local authority; or a scheduled corporation, after the expiration of two years from the date on which the cause of action arose.” Pursuant to Schedule 3, the NEMA is a “scheduled corporation”.72 Pursuant to Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1959, an action may not be brought upon any judgement after the expiry of 12 years from the date of the judgement. A claim for equitable relief has no limitation.73 For criminal cases, no limitation periods apply.

F. Is legal aid available in environmental cases? If so, under what circumstances?

Generally, there is no statutory free legal aid provision in Uganda for environmental cases. The Constitution grants a right to legal representation at the expense of the State for any person accused of an offence which carries a sentence of death or life imprisonment, which provides no assistance to environmental cases.74

In recognition of the lack of statutory free legal aid provisions in Uganda, projects have been set up to assist in providing legal assistance to vulnerable people in Uganda; see, for example, the Legal Aid Project which was established by the Ugandan Law Society in 1992.75 In addition, several NGOs are offering legal aid services, some under the umbrella of the Legal Aid Service Providers Network (LASPNET).

 
 

III. Remedies

A. What remedies are courts empowered to impose in environmental cases?

Under Article 50 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court can award “redress which may include compensation” for breaches of constitutional rights. Section 9 of the HREA provides that when human rights violations are found, courts may issue the orders they consider appropriate, including compensation. The HREA also allows for courts to issue a number of additional remedies, which include restitution, rehabilitation and satisfaction measures.76 As such, when the right to a clean and healthy environment has been breached, courts may award these remedies.

Under Article 137, the Constitutional Court can grant a declaration that any law or any action or omission is unconstitutional and can also award redress.

Under the CPR, the civil Courts have the power to award financial damages and injunctive relief. Under the NEA 1995, where an action is brought against a person whose activities or omissions are likely to have a significant impact on the environment, the NEMA or local environment committee may request that the Court:

  • (a) prevents, stops or discontinues any act or omission deleterious to the environment;
  • (b) compel any public officer to take measures to prevent or to discontinue any act or omission deleterious to the environment;
  • (c) require that any ongoing activity be subjected to an environmental audit;
  • (d) require that any ongoing activity be subjected to environmental monitoring; or
  • (e) request a Court order for the taking of other measures that would ensure that the environment does not suffer any significant damage.

Where a person is convicted of an environmental offence under the NEA 1995, in addition to any other order imposed upon the conviction of the accused, the Court may make an order for forfeiture, the cancellation of permits, or for community service which promotes the protection or improvement of the environment.77 The Court may also order the person to:

  • (a) pay to the Government, in addition to any penalty imposed on him or her by the Court for the offence, an amount of compensation for the loss or damage not exceeding five times the value of the loss or damage caused by the convicted person;78
  • (b) pay up to ten times the amount of any fees, royalties or other payments which, had the act constituting the offence been authorised, would have been payable in respect of the authorised act;79
  • (c) order that person, within a time specified in the order, to do any act the person had failed, refused or neglected to do;80 or
  • (d) for offences relating to fragile ecosystems, the Court may, in addition to any other penalty, order that person, within a time to be specified in the order to vacate or restore the fragile ecosystem, or remove from the fragile ecosystem anything that he or she may have placed in that ecosystem.81

When in force, the NEA 2019 will expand the remedies available in environmental cases. Pursuant to Subsection 3(3), where a person commences a civil suit against a person whose act or omission has or is likely to cause harm to human health or the environment, the Court may be required:

  • (a) to prevent, stop or discontinue any act or omission deleterious to human health or the environment;
  • (b) to require that an activity likely to have significant adverse impacts on human health or the environment be subjected to an environmental and social impact or risk assessment;
  • (c) to require that any ongoing activity that is likely to impact human health or the environment be subjected to an environmental audit in accordance with the NEA 2019;
  • (d) to require that any ongoing activity be subjected to environmental monitoring in accordance with the NEA 2019;
  • (e) to compel any ministry, department, agency or local government to take measures to prevent or to discontinue any act or omission deleterious to human health or the environment;
  • (f) to require any person to take any other measures to ensure that human health or the environment do not suffer any significant harm or damage;
  • to compel the persons responsible for the environmental degradation to restore the degraded environment as far as practicable to its immediate condition prior to the damage;
  • to provide compensation for any victim of pollution and the cost of beneficial uses lost as a result of an act of pollution; or
  • to provide compensation for other losses that are connected with or incidental to subparagraph (a) to (h).

B. What remedies have courts ordered in environmental cases to date?

As noted above, the Courts have the power to order various remedies in environmental cases. Typically, the remedies granted in environmental cases include injunctions (interlocutory or permanent), declarations, damage orders, restitution orders, and judicial review.82 However, this is not always the case and the Ugandan Courts have shown a reluctance to grant meaningful and effective orders in some environmental cases. For example, in the case of Greenwatch v AG & NEMA (referenced in Section I.B above), the High Court made a landmark decision that the manufacture, distribution, use, sale, sell disposal of plastic bags, plastic containers, plastic food wrappers, and all other forms of plastic violated the rights of citizens of Uganda to a clean and healthy environment (Article 39 of the Constitution).83 The relief requested by Greenwatch included the ban on manufacturing, use, distribution and sale, regulations for proper use and disposal of all plastics, an environment restoration order and an order directing the importers, manufacturers and distributors to pay the costs of environment restoration. While the Court made the decision that these matters violated the rights of Ugandan citizens, and acknowledged Greenwatch’s efforts to protect the environment, the Court was unable to order any substantive and effective remedies in the terms sought by Greenwatch as these matters were a question for Parliament. The Court commented that the orders sought after by Greenwatch will “hopefully be addressed in the proposed law”.84

In the case of Greenwatch and Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment v Golf Course Holdings Ltd, the High Court declined to issue an interlocutory injunction against the respondent which would have prevented it from building a hotel on a site that was wetland and a green area. The Court held that as the land belonged to the respondent, in the absence of fraud, their title could not be impeached;85 to do so would violate the Registration of Titles Act 1924.86 In this case, the Court was reluctant to apply modern principles of environmental law contained in the NEA 1995; instead, the Court exercised its discretion regressively by applying the provisions of the Registration of Titles Act 1924. Instead of ordering a progressive solution that would have prevented environmental harm, the Court adopted a reactionary approach that is common amongst the Ugandan Courts. Counterintuitively, the Court noted that if damage was caused, Greenwatch could then seek an environmental restoration order under Section 67 of the NEA 1995 as an alternative remedy.

C. Are there any administrative authorities empowered to act on environmental complaints and if so, how are they empowered to respond to complaints?

The authority responsible for monitoring, coordinating, supervising and regulating the national environment and the environmental policy of Uganda is the NEMA. The NEMA was established in 1995 under Section 4 of the NEA 1995.87 Section 8 of the NEA 2019 provides for the continuation of the NEMA upon commencement of the Act.

The NEMA receives and handles environmental complaints from the public. Under Section 6 of the NEA 1995 and Section 9 of the NEA 2019, the NEMA is to ensure the integration of environmental concerns in overall national planning through coordination with relevant ministries, departments and agencies of the government.

Under both the NEA 1995 and the NEA 2019, each district has a full mandate to form a committee on environment and an office with powers to coordinate the activities relating to the management of the environment and natural resources, and ensure that environmental concerns are integrated into all plans and projects.88 As such, local environmental committees have the ability to receive and respond to environmental complaints.

 
 

IV. Civil and political rights

Freedom of peaceful assembly

A. How is children’s right to engage in peaceful assembly, including protests, protected in national law?

Article 29(d) of the Constitution sets out the rights of all persons to “the freedom to assemble and to demonstrate together with others peacefully and unarmed and to petition”.

Article 15(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child89 states that “States Parties recognise the rights of the child to freedom of association and to freedom of peaceful assembly”. Sub-Article 4(1)(l) of the Children (Amendment) Act 201690 states that every child shall have the right to “exercise…the rights set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child”.

B. Are there any legal limitations on the right of children to engage in peaceful assemblies?

Article 15(2) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that no restrictions may be placed on the exercise of a child’s right to freedom of assembly and freedom of peaceful assembly “other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.

The Public Order Management Act 201391 also gives the police in Uganda wide discretionary powers to prevent public assemblies based on the preservation of public order. For example, Section 8 of the Act gives the Inspector General of the Police sweeping powers to prevent or stop public gatherings or shut down protests. On 26 March 2020, Uganda’s Constitutional Court declared Section 8 of Uganda’s Public Order Management Act 2013 illegal and unconstitutional. Is it yet to be seen whether this will result in the Act being repealed.92

In addition, section 65 of the Penal Code93 (which applies to children) defines unlawful assembly as the assembly of “three or more persons [...] with intent to commit an offence, or [...] conduct themselves in such a manner as to cause persons in the neighbourhood reasonably to fear that [those assembled or others] will commit a breach of the peace”. Pursuant to section 66, persons participating in an unlawful assembly commit a misdemeanour are liable to imprisonment for one year. Section 83 criminalises incitement to violence, which can include the incitement to commit “an act of violence against any person by reason of his or her [...] office”.94 This offence is punished with “imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years”. Section 160 penalises common nuisance that includes annoyance, obstruction to justice and causing inconvenience to the public. Section 88 of the Children (Amendment) Act 2016 states that the minimum age of criminal responsibility is 12 years old. It is therefore possible that a child over the age of 12 may face criminal responsibility for any of these offences.

C. What penalties can be imposed on children for engaging in school strikes?

There are no specific penalties set out in the statutory framework regarding the involvement of children in school strikes. However, penalties may be imposed if a school strike is deemed to be an unlawful assembly. Section 66 of the Public Order Management Act 2013 states that “[a]ny person who takes part in an unlawful assembly commits a misdemeanour and is liable to imprisonment for one year”. As noted above, Section 88 of the Children (Amendment) Act 2016 states that the minimum age of criminal responsibility is 12 years old. A child over the age of 12 may therefore face criminal responsibility for their participation in an unlawful assembly. Children participating in school strikes may equally face criminal responsibility if the criminal offences of unlawful assembly, incitement to violence and common nuisance are engaged, as set out above.

Freedom of expression

A. How is children’s right to freedom of expression protected in national law? Are there any protections within the national constitution, legislation or developed through case law?

Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution gives every person the right to freedom of speech and expression.

Section 4(1)(b) of the Children Act, Cap 59 (as amended), gives every child the right to “where capable, express his or her view, belief or opinion on any matter that affects his or her wellbeing”.

Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that “States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child”. Section 4(1)(l) of the Children Act states that every child shall have the right to “exercise…the rights set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child”.

Article 13 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that “[t]he child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child’s choice.”

B. Are there any legal limits or restrictions on the right to freedom of expression that specifically apply to children?

Article 12(2) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that the right for a child to be heard in any judicial or administrative proceedings should be “in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law”.

Article 13(2) states that the exercise of a child’s right to freedom of expression may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) for the respect of the rights or reputations of others; or (b), for the protection of national security or of public order or of public health or morals.

In the case of Shamira v Kampala City Council & 2 Others,95 the High Court considered the caveat contained in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child regarding the weighting given to a child’s expression in accordance with the age and maturity of that child. In that case, the subject matter and age of the child led the Court to decide that the child lacked the capacity to give a view, and as such, to impose an agreement on the minor would be to impinge its rights.

Freedom of association

A. How is children’s right to freedom of association protected in national law? Are there any protections within the national constitution, legislation or developed through case law?

Under Article 29(e) of the Constitution, every person shall have the right to “freedom of association which shall include the freedom to form and join associations or unions, include trade unions and political or other civic organisations”.

Article 15 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child sets out the right of children to freedom of association. Sub-Article 4(1)(l) of the Children (Amendment) Act 2016 also states that every child shall have the right to exercise “the rights set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child”.

B. Are there any legal limits or restrictions on the right to association that specifically apply to children?

Article 15(2) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that “no restrictions may be placed on the exercise of these rights other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedom of others.”

Access to information

A. How is children’s right to access information protected in national law? Are there any protections within the national constitution, legislation or developed through case law?

Under Article 41(1) of the Constitution “every citizen has a right of access to information in the possession of the State or any other organ or agency of the State except where the release of the information is likely to prejudice the security or sovereignty of the State or interfere with the right to the privacy of any other person”.

Article 5 of the Access to Information Act 201696 reiterates every citizen’s constitutional right to information, but significantly emphasises access to the most up-to-date information.

Part V of the National Environment (Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit Sharing) Regulations 200597 states that “any person wishing to access information or documents relating to access to genetic resources shall be granted access by the competent authority or lead agency” and that it should be made available “within sixty days after the date of application”.

Article 4(1)(c) of the Children Act, Cap 59 (as amended) gives every child the right to access any information to which a parent, guardian or other person in authority deems critical to the child’s wellbeing.

The right of children to access information is also recognised by Article 13(1) and Article 17 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Sub-Article 4(1)(l) of the Children (Amendment) Act 2016 states that every child shall have the right to exercise “the rights set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child”.

B. Are there any legal limits or restrictions on the right to access information that apply specifically to children?

The right of a child to receive information set out in Article 13 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is only subject to Article 13(2) which states that “the exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary (a) for respect of the rights or reputations of others; or (b) for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals.”

Article 17(e) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child requires State Parties to “encourage the development of appropriate guidelines for the protection of the child from information and material injurious to his or her well-being”. There are currently no specific laws or guidelines in place specifically restricting the right of children to access information on this basis.

It is worth noting that individual social media sites, (e.g. Instagram, Facebook, TikTok and Twitter) require users to be at least 13 years old.

C. Does the national curriculum for schools include environmental education?

Section 2(2)(j) of the National Environment Act (NES)98 requires “that environmental awareness is treated as an integral part of education at all levels”. Section 88 states that “the Authority shall, in collaboration with the Minister responsible for education, take all measures necessary for the integration in the school curriculum of education on the environment”.

Environmental education appears in other legislative documents, including the NEA 199599 and the Constitution. Uganda also has national formal and non-formal environmental education strategies, which were incorporated into the National Education for Sustainable Development Strategy.100

At the primary level, environmental education has been integrated into English, Science, Mathematics and Social Studies. All primary teachers are expected to be following the “Learning Framework”, which includes environmental topics. The Uganda National Examinations Board now sets questions based on environmental education. Themes included in the primary curriculum relating to the environment are as follows: environmental protection of soil, animals and plants, the resources in the environment and how to look after them sparingly for future generations, managing changes in the environment, sanitation, sound energy and responsible living in East Africa.101

At secondary level, the development of environmental education content for the curriculum is ongoing. The current curriculum102 includes, as “cross-cutting issues”, climate change, animal welfare and disaster risk reduction.

***

End notes

1 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, Paragraph XIII: available here, the principle is restated in Sub-Article 237(2)(b) of the Constitution.


2 Ibid. Chapter 4, Protection and Promotion of Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms.


3 Ibid. Article 34(4), Rights of Children.


4 Ibid. Chapter 15, Land and the Environment. Article 245, Protection and Preservation of the Environment.


5 Ibid. Chapter 3, Citizenship. Article 17(1)(j), Duties of a Citizen.


6 Greenwatch v AG and NEMA (Misc Cause No 140 of 2002) [2002] UGHC 205, available here.


7 Ibid.


8 British American Tobacco Limited v Environmental Action Network Ltd (Civil Application No. 27/2003). Available here.


9 Advocates for Coalition for Development and Environment v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 0100/2004). Available here.


10 Nyakaana v National Environment Management Authority and Ors (Constitutional Appeal 5 of 2011) [2015] UGSC 14 (20 August 2015). Available here.


11 Karugaba, P. A win for the Environment, 11th December 2015. Available online at: here.


12 Ibid.


13 Mbabazi and Others v. The Attorney General and National Environmental Management Authority, Civil Suit No. 283/2012. Available here.


14 Ibid, para 10.


15 Ibid.


16 Ibid. Our Children’s Trust, Legal Updates. Available here.


17 National Environment Act (1995) (“NEA 1995”). Available here.


18 National Environment Act (2019) (“NEA 2019”). Preamble. Available here.


19 Ibid, section 1.


20 Uganda Wildlife Act (1996). Available here.


21 The Mining Act (2003). Available here.


22 National Forestry and Tree Planting Act (2003). Available here.


23 National Association of Professional Environmentalists, Report on Hazardous Consumer Products on Ugandan Market. Available here.


24 Ibid, page 10.


25 Ibid.


26 Ibid. See also: National Association of Professional Environmentalists, National Assessment on Policy and Legislation of Chemicals Management in Uganda, (May 2010), page 2. Available here.


27 Supra at 1. Chapter 8, The Judiciary. Article 129, The Courts of Judicature.


28 Ibid. Article 132(1), Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.


29 Ibid. Article 134(2), The Court of Appeal of Uganda.


30 Ibid. Article 137(1), Questions as to the interpretation of the Constitution.


31 Ibid. Article 139(1), Jurisdiction of the High Court.


32 Mahoro, B. Uganda’s Legal System and Legal Sector, (August 2006). Available here.


33 Human Rights (Enforcement) Act (2019). Available here.


34 Supra at 1. Article 137(3), Questions as to the interpretation of the Constitution.


35 The National Environment Act (1995), Section 3(1)-(2). Available here.


36 Ibid. Section 3(3).


37 The National Environment Act (2019) will come into force on a date which is to be appointed by the Minister by statutory instrument (see NEA (2019), Section 1). Available here. As of November 2022, the NEA 1995 is still in force.


38 The National Environment Act (2019), Section 3(4). Available here.


39 The Civil Procedures Act (1929). Available here.


40 The Civil Procedure Rules (31st January 1964). Available here.


41 Supra 38. Section 53(7).


42 Ibid. Section 97(10).


43 Ibid. Part XVI Offences, Penalties, Fees, Fines and Other Charges.


44 The Magistrates’ Court Act (1971). Section 42(1)(a). Available here.


45 Ibid. Section 42(1)(b).


46 Ibid. Section 42(1)(c).


47 Ibid. Section 42(3).


48 Ibid. Section 42(3).


49 Ibid. Section 42(5).


50 Such as the right to a clean and healthy environment under Article 39 of the Constitution.


51 Human Rights (Enforcement) Act (2019). Section 3(2)(a)-(c). Available here.


52 Supra 35. Section 3.


53 Ben Kiromba Twinomugisha, Some Reflections on Judicial Protection of the Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment in Uganda, Law, Environment and Development Journal (2007), Vol. 3/3. Page 250. Available here. In this publication, the author discusses the case of Byabazaire Grace Thaddeus v. Mukwano Industries Misc. App. No.909 of 2000 (2001). In that case, the Court found that it was the NEMA who had the right to bring a claim for breaches of Section 3 of the NEA 1995, and not the individual claimant who had brought the action.


54 Supra 38. Section 3(3).


55 Ibid. Section 4(2).


56 Supra 1. Article 50(2).


57 Supra 40. Order I, Rule 8(1). Available here.


58 For example, Greenwatch is a NGO based in Uganda that protects Ugandan’s Article 39 right to a clean and healthy environment by instigating public interest litigation. For more information on Greenwatch, see here.


59 Supra 17. Section 3(3).


60 Ibid. Section 3(4).


61 The Children Act (1997), Part II: Rights of the Child, Section 2: Definition of a Child. Available here.


62 The Civil Procedure Rules [No.71-1 of 2014], Order XXXII, Rule 1. Available here.


63Ibid. Order XXXII, Rule 4.


64 Semyalo v The Registered Trustees Kampala Archdiocese [2012] UGSC 1. Available here.


65 The Magistrates’ Court Act, Subsection 42(3).


66 Emmanuel Kasimbazi and Kibandama Alexander, Environmental Law in Uganda, Kluwer Law International B.V (2018). Part V, para 858.


67 Nsubuga v. Kavuma [1978] HCB 307.


68 Woolmington v DPP [1935] UKHL 1; Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 All ER 372, p. 373; Uganda v Dr Aggrey Kiyingi and 2 others [2006] UGHC 52; R v Carr-Briant (1943) KB 607.


69 Woolmington v DPP [1935] UKHL 1, para 859.


70 Ibid. Para 862.


71 The Limitation Act (1959). Section 3(1). Available here.


72 The Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (1969). Available here.


73 Supra 71. Section 3.


74 Supra 1. Chapter 4: Protection and Promotion of Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms. Article 28(e)(3): Right to a Fair Hearing. Available here.


75 Legal Aid Service Providers’ Network, Legal Aid Project of the Ugandan Law Society - LAP, available here.


76 The Human Rights (Enforcement) Act (2019). Section 9(2): “The competent court may in addition to the orders referred to under subsection (l), order for – (a) the restitution of the victim to the original situation before the violation of his or her human rights and freedoms; (b) the rehabilitation of the victim including the provision of medical and psychological care; or satisfaction, which shall include – (i) measures aimed at the cessation of the continuing violation of human rights and freedoms; (ii) verification of the facts, full and public disclosure of the truth to the extent that such disclosure does not cause further harm or threaten the safety and interests of the victim, the victim's relatives, witnesses, or persons who have intervened to assist the victim or prevent the occurrence of further violations; (iii) restoring the dignity, the reputation and the rights of the victim and of persons closely connected with the victim; (iv) public apology, including acknowledgement of the facts and acceptance of responsibility; (v) criminal and other judicial and administrative sanctions against persons liable for the violations; and (vi) guarantees of n-repetition”.


77 National Environment Act (NEA) (1995), Section 143. Available here, and National Environment Act (NEA) (2019), Section 143. Available here.


78 Ibid. (1995) Section 114(a) and (2019) Section 114(a).


79 Ibid. (1995) Section 144(b) and (2019) Section 144(b).


80 Ibid. (1995) Section 145(a) and (2019) Section 145(a).


81 Ibid. (1995) Section 145(b) and (2019) Section 145(b).


82 Luis J. Kotze and Alexander Paterson, The Role of the Judiciary in Environmental Governance: Comparative Perspectives, Kluwer Law International (2009), page 495.>


83 Greenwatch v AG & N.E.M.A (Misc. cause no.140 of 2002) [2002] UGHC 205 (5 October 2002). Available here.


84 Ibid.


Greenwatch and Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment v Golf Course Holdings Ltd, misc. application No 390/2001, arising from H.C.C.S. NO.834/2000. Available here.


86 Ibid.


87 Supra 77. (1995), Section 4(1).


88 Supra 77. (1995), Section 14 and (2019), Sections 26, 27 and 28.


89 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly Resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989, entry into force 2 September 1990, in accordance with Article 49. Available here.


90 The Children (Amendment) Act (2016). Available here.


91 SThe Public Order Management Act (2013). Available here.


92 Amnesty International, Uganda Constitutional Court Nullifies Law Used to Prohibit Protests, (27th March 2020). Available here.


93 The Penal Code Act (1950). Chapter VIII: Unlawful Assemblies, Riots and Other Offences Against Public Tranquility, Section 65: Definition of Unlawful Assembly and Riot. Available here.


94 Ibid. Section 83(2): Incitement to Violence: clarifies that “‘office’ means the office of a Minister of the Government, a member of Parliament or a councillor, a public office, employment in the service of the administration of a district or the council or board of a municipality or town, any religious office and employment as a director, officer or other official in or by any body corporate established by or under the auspices of or controlled by the Government”.


95 Nantume Sharifa v Kampala City Council & 2 Ors (Civil Suit 33 of 2007) [2009] UGHC 89 (30 March 2009). Available here.


96 Access to Information Act (2005). Available here.


97 National Environment (Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit Sharing) Regulations (2005). Available here.


98 DNational Environment Statute (1995) (Statute No. 4 of 1995). Available here.


99 Supra 17. Chapter 153, Sections 6, 86(i) and (e) and 87.


100 Uganda National Commission for UNESCO, Uganda: Education for Sustainable Development Implementation Strategy, (2010). Available here.


101 Ministry of Education and Sports, Primary School Abridged Curriculum for Uganda, National Curriculum Development Centre. Available here.


102 Uganda Media Centre, Brief on the Lower Secondary Curriculum, (February 12th 2020). Available here.