Tororo High Court bars expulsion of pregnant learner

___________________

The High Court in Tororo has barred the expulsion of a learner who was discovered to be pregnant.

The court says the Busia district-based school has no power to summarily expel the girl. The ruling on October 4, 2024, arose from a public interest case.

Tororo High Court Resident Judge Henry Kaweesi contended that the ruling on the matter was a stern and firm statement with respect to reproductive justice.

“The ruling guarantees the right to education of girls that become pregnant while at school. This should mark the end of the unjust phenomenon,” Kaweesi said.

The ruling comes after Women with a Mission, a non-profit legal entity based in Tororo, sought redress in a civil matter cause No 001 of 2024 filed before the High Court in Tororo, against authorities of Busumba Primary School in Busia district.

Betty Balisalamu and Monicah Kakuru attached to Women with a Mission chambers, were lawyers who represented the minor in the civil matter that has attracted public interest, while counsel James Okuku represented the school authorities.

Women with a Mission, legal chambers, petitioned the High Court in Tororo, seeking redress, over the fate of a female minor.

Arbitrary expulsion from school

The petition indicated that a female minor and pupil (name withheld) aged 15 years was arbitrarily expelled from school by authorities of government-aided Busumba Primary School.

The harsh decision against the minor arose out of physical harassment and immeasurable trauma of the minor by suspicious female teaching staff members of the school and members of the school management.

Court heard that the day the minor was subjected to harassment she had turned up at school to study like other pupils.

She was in class attending lessons like her classmates when a female deputy headteacher summoned her to the office.

While at the deputy headteacher’s office, the minor recalls, then, was crammed with about half a dozen women waiting for her in earnest.

Among them were female teachers, while others were members of the school management committee.

Hell broke loose as soon as the minor walked into the deputy headteacher’s office.

Some of the women inside were sneering while others frowning taunted the minor, before rudely instructing her to lay on a bare, hard, long table in the office.

"The women, in turns, using their rough, un-gloved hands, would grope, fondle, knead, the minor’s groin, in a crude effort to confirm her conception,” Betty Balisalamu, one of the minor’s lawyers had submitted at the preliminary proceeding of the case.

Meanwhile, authorities of the school had already summoned the minor’s father who arrived at the school administration premises, shortly after the women were done with the traumatic exercise.

In a humiliating act, the school authority would rush headlong to brief the minor’s father on what had transpired before pronouncing the fate of her daughter.

“Your daughter is pregnant and the school authority has taken a unanimous decision of expelling her from school,” the female headteacher is quoted to have said.

Frantic efforts by the minor’s father to plead with the school authorities to allow his daughter to continue with her studies did not yield any results.

Even when the father of the minor laboured to explain that his daughter had been a victim of sexual violence, as she had been defiled by an anonymous youth, a case filed at Busia Central Police Station under reference No. CRB 13/07/09/2023, his plea would not convince the school authorities to rescind their earlier decision.

Ray of hope

The fate of the minor, however, attracted the attention of volunteer legal practitioners who offered to represent the minor as they resolutely took issues with the school authority, dragging them to court seeking justice.

The petition was filed before the court hinged on Article 50 of the Constitution of Uganda, the Human Rights Enforcement Act and the judicature (fundamental and human rights and freedoms) enforcement procedural rules SI 2019.

The suit, then, would seek the following orders of court.

“To declare the decision of the school authority in the matter before the court as a result of a positive pregnancy test, to be a violation of the minor's right to education, dignity, equality, nondiscrimination and freedom from cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment provided for under articles 21, 24, 30, 34, 44 o the constitution.

The lawyers for the minor, then, had demanded that the court declare the physical examination subjected to the minor, as in its entirety, a crude and demeaning act that violated among others privacy, abused the minor’s dignity as provided for under articles 21, 24, 27, 30, &44(a) of the 1995 constitution of Uganda.

The suit also sought for general damages to be awarded to the minor owing to the trauma she suffered.

At the beginning of the court proceedings, the defendants had vehemently denied violating the minor’s rights.

However, keen scrutiny of affidavits in reply by the defendants filed before the court had turned out to be a confession of tormenting the minor, hence renouncing their earlier plea of denial.

Through their lawyer, James Okuku, the defendants would request court, the matter to be settled amicably “by way of consent order”.

In his ruling, High Court Judge Kaweesi observed that he had carefully evaluated the pleadings of both parties and was inclined to agree with the submission of the lawyers of the minor.

“The ruling in this case is a stern and firm statement in respect to reproductive justice for girl children and victims of sexual violence.

Against all odds, this Court guarantees the right to education of girl children.  

Adding: “The minor shall, at once, be allowed to continue with her education, with the liberty of breaking off during the day, to go and breastfeed/ care, for her baby, then, return to school".

The same has to be observed until she completes her primary education,” The judge stressed.

Court declined to award damages to the minor, on account that the matter before the court now amounted to public interest litigation, advising each party to care for their own legal costs.