The Constitutional Court has nullified sections 168(1) (c) and 168 of the Penal Code Act that provide for rogue and vagabond offences.

The judgement followed a petition by human rights lawyer Francis Tumwesigye Ateenyi.

Previously, a suspected person or reputed thief who has no visible means of subsistence and cannot give a good account of himself or herself and is found wandering on any road or highway or in any public place for an illegal or disorderly purpose shall be deemed to be a rogue and vagabond.

(L-R) Francis Tumwesige, Flavia Zalwango, the Human Rights Awareness and Promotion Forum (HRAPF) program director and Dr.Adrian Jjuuko, the organisation's executive director, speaking to each other after winning rogue and vagabond petition. (Photo by Michael Odeng)

The section adds that such a person commits a misdemeanor and is liable on conviction, for the first offence to six-months imprisonment, and for every subsequent offence to one-year jail term.

Friday (December 2, 2022), Justices Fredrick Egonda-Ntende, Elizabeth Musoke, Christopher Madrama, Monica Mugenyi, and Christopher Gashirabake, said the offences are not sufficiently and precisely defined to warrant loss of the right to liberty.

“The impugned offences are not constitutionally permissible for being vague, ambiguous and too broad. Any attempt to deprive an individual of his or her personal liberty on account of these impugned offences would contravene the affected person’s right to personal liberty,” Egonda-Ntende said.

(L-R) Dr Adrian Jjuuko, the Executive Director of Human Rights Awareness and Promotion Forum (HRAPF) adressing journalists after winning rogue and vagabond petition. Besides him is petitioner Francis Tumwesige. (Photo by Michael Odeng)

Egonda-Ntende said the offences that do not pass constitutional muster cannot lawfully be the cause of restriction of one’s fundamental right to move freely throughout Uganda.

“In fact, as an aggravation, the impugned offences clearly contravene the right to freely move throughout Uganda and justification of such contravention as saved by Article 43 of the Constitution would have to be justified by the Attorney General,” he said.