Media await Supreme Court ruling
Feb 12, 2004
<b>By Chibita wa Duallo</b><br><br>Sometime this week, the Supreme Court of Uganda is supposed to rule on the constitutionality of some sections of the Penal Code Act that criminalise certain actions of journalists.
By Chibita wa Duallo
Sometime this week, the Supreme Court of Uganda is supposed to rule on the constitutionality of some sections of the Penal Code Act that criminalise certain actions of journalists.
Such actions include publication of false news, publishing statements likely to incite violence etc.
Going by what the trends have been at the Supreme Court and in other courts all over the world, it will not be totally surprising if the Supreme Court actually declares some sections of the Penal Code unconstitutional.
In their ruling, on the freedom of access to information in the Ssemogerere petition which they delivered two weeks ago, their Lordships came out as being more liberal than conservative regarding access to information.
The current matter that awaits a ruling had earlier been deliberated upon by the Constitutional court, which declined to agree with the counsel for the Monitor journalists that the section of the Penal Code under which they had been charged was unconstitutional.
The Monitor lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court against the Constitutional Court verdict hence the judgment of the Supreme Court awaited this week.
Indeed journalists and other media practitioners have constantly called for the repeal of those sections of the Penal Code, which they derogatorily refer to as draconian laws.
After failing to get parliament to have those laws repealed, the media practitioners finally decided to turn their grievances to the courts of law.
It should be noted that the judiciary has been reluctant to convict any of the journalists prosecuted under the offending sections.
The only exception being Haruna Kanabi, who was convicted and sentenced for sedition.
In Zimbabwe, the Supreme Court ruled that section 80 of their Access to information and Protection of Privacy Act was unconstitutional. That section created what became known as the ‘false news offence’ almost similar to the one under the Ugandan Penal Code Act which creates the offence of publication of false news.
The Zimbabwean case went to court after two journalists published a story alleging that an opposition party supporter had been beheaded by supporters of the ruling party.
The story turned out to be false and the paper retracted it and apologised. The two journalists were, however, arrested and charged under the false news offence aforementioned.
The two journalists then referred the matter to the Supreme Court.
Apparently, even before the Supreme Court could rule on the matter, the State filed a notice saying that it was not defending the constitutionality of the section in question.
They went ahead to argue that the State was already in the process of amending the relevant section so that it conforms to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution.
The Supreme Court of Zimbabwe therefore had little option but to go ahead and declare the section unconstitutional.
The full bench ordered that section 80 of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act be declared ultra vires. The Constitution had to be struck down as being of no force and effect.
After the Zimbabwean ruling, a number of media practitioners have been awaiting the Ugandan Supreme Court’s decision with a lot of anxiety. They are hoping that the courts will do for them what parliament was reluctant to give them.
Yet, given that the judiciary had almost already taken a position against convicting journalists accused of diverse offences under the Penal Code, even if the Supreme Court struck down the sections complained of, it would just be confirming what has already been in practice at the lower courts.
Sometime this week, the Supreme Court of Uganda is supposed to rule on the constitutionality of some sections of the Penal Code Act that criminalise certain actions of journalists.
Such actions include publication of false news, publishing statements likely to incite violence etc.
Going by what the trends have been at the Supreme Court and in other courts all over the world, it will not be totally surprising if the Supreme Court actually declares some sections of the Penal Code unconstitutional.
In their ruling, on the freedom of access to information in the Ssemogerere petition which they delivered two weeks ago, their Lordships came out as being more liberal than conservative regarding access to information.
The current matter that awaits a ruling had earlier been deliberated upon by the Constitutional court, which declined to agree with the counsel for the Monitor journalists that the section of the Penal Code under which they had been charged was unconstitutional.
The Monitor lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court against the Constitutional Court verdict hence the judgment of the Supreme Court awaited this week.
Indeed journalists and other media practitioners have constantly called for the repeal of those sections of the Penal Code, which they derogatorily refer to as draconian laws.
After failing to get parliament to have those laws repealed, the media practitioners finally decided to turn their grievances to the courts of law.
It should be noted that the judiciary has been reluctant to convict any of the journalists prosecuted under the offending sections.
The only exception being Haruna Kanabi, who was convicted and sentenced for sedition.
In Zimbabwe, the Supreme Court ruled that section 80 of their Access to information and Protection of Privacy Act was unconstitutional. That section created what became known as the ‘false news offence’ almost similar to the one under the Ugandan Penal Code Act which creates the offence of publication of false news.
The Zimbabwean case went to court after two journalists published a story alleging that an opposition party supporter had been beheaded by supporters of the ruling party.
The story turned out to be false and the paper retracted it and apologised. The two journalists were, however, arrested and charged under the false news offence aforementioned.
The two journalists then referred the matter to the Supreme Court.
Apparently, even before the Supreme Court could rule on the matter, the State filed a notice saying that it was not defending the constitutionality of the section in question.
They went ahead to argue that the State was already in the process of amending the relevant section so that it conforms to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution.
The Supreme Court of Zimbabwe therefore had little option but to go ahead and declare the section unconstitutional.
The full bench ordered that section 80 of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act be declared ultra vires. The Constitution had to be struck down as being of no force and effect.
After the Zimbabwean ruling, a number of media practitioners have been awaiting the Ugandan Supreme Court’s decision with a lot of anxiety. They are hoping that the courts will do for them what parliament was reluctant to give them.
Yet, given that the judiciary had almost already taken a position against convicting journalists accused of diverse offences under the Penal Code, even if the Supreme Court struck down the sections complained of, it would just be confirming what has already been in practice at the lower courts.