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.
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.

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 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.” [p. 10]

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.” [p. 12]

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.” [p. 13] 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.”
[p. 13]
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.” [p. 13]

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. [p. 14]

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.” [p. 16]

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.” [pp. 16-17]

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