same here
To abort or not; what the law says
May 29, 2007
Women’s human rights to determine what to do with their bodies, religion and politics have all formed part of the long running debate on abortion. The issue of whether abortion should be legalised in Uganda has now taken on a national dimension, especially after the chairperson of the Uganda Human Rights Commission , Mrs Margaret Ssekaggya stated that women have a right to abort.The anti-abortion lobbyists, whose crusade is largely based on moral-religious grounds argue that the right to life is God-given and as such cannot be taken away by an expectant mother who is not ready to suffer the pangs of birth .This group stresses the point that terminating a pregnancy is a selfish act where a woman preserves her life at the expense of her unborn baby - which in itself is murder.For starters, the Constitution of Uganda allows for the fundamental right to life which includes the life of un-born child. However, the same Constitution allows for women to terminate the life of an unborn child in circumstances that are permitted by law. Although our criminal penal law outlaws abortion and imposes a heavy penalty of imprisonment for life upon conviction, Section 224 of the same law allows for surgical operation to terminate the pregnancy (read abortion) in situations where the mother’s life is in danger.Much as we have the law criminalising abortions, it is a well known fact that many unsafe abortions are still carried out in the country. As a result several women and girls die or suffer life threatening complications given the crude and unhealthy methods which are employed to abort in these backstreet ‘clinics’.The high maternal mortality registered in this country can partly be attributed to the many unsafe abortions some carried out by quacks.By criminalising abortion and the State’s failure to legalise and provide for safe abortion many women are left with one option - to secure unsafe abortions. The end results are in most cases disastrous with lives lost and women’s fundamental right to life is infringed upon.That is why this column takes the stand that it is a total violation of the women’s fundamental human rights to criminalise abortion. Access to safe and legal abortion is a woman’s human right which is supported by numerous international legal instruments.The woman’s right to abort also touches on the other sensitive issue of gender equality which hitherto was considered to a taboo - in the African setting. Well, those were the medieval times and people have since moved on. Now, the right to gender equality is a fundamental human right not only recognised by international human rights law but by our national Constitution as well.Yes, the male folk are free to do whatever they want with their bodies and the women cannot be permitted similar privileges? This is wrong, unfair and unjust under the law. The law about non-discrimination on grounds of gender as provided for in our Constitution takes the legal effect of eliminating all laws (including the sections which criminalise abortion) that are designed to fail women from realising and exercising their human rights on a basis of equality with men.It is also clear that laws that deny women the choice to abort have the wanton effect of curtailing the woman’s human right to decide what is in her best interests. It is a well known fact that a discriminatory legal regime undermines the status of women in society as being ‘weaker’ and unable to make responsible decisions about their bodies or more importantly their lives.Further still, it is a well known international human rights principle that the right to health includes the right to reproductive health and this encompasses the right to reproductive self-determination. International health law further provides for women and any other peoples of the civilised world to have the highest attainable standard of health. The United Nations has called upon governments (including the Uganda government) to consider the consequences of unsafe abortion on women’s health and deal with the problem as a major public health concern.
Next week: What have courts decided on the life of a foetus/father of the unborn?
The writer is a Journalist/Advocate,msserwanga@gmail.commsserwanga.blogspot.com0772 43 46 77.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
THERE MUST BE GOOD GROUNDS TO CENSOR MEDIA
America’s Civil liberties crusader, the late Martin Luther King jr. once said that: “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter".
The principle concern of the media as the forth estate of the state, is to break that silence and make our leaders accountable to the wider public.
The constitution of Uganda declares the right to freedom of speech and expression in Article 29 thus: Every person shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, which shall include freedom of the press and other media.
That declaration does not speculate or specify what a person is free to say or express. And this is for good justified reasons; It is difficult to imagine a guaranteed right more important to democratic society than freedom of expression.
Unfortunately, all is not rosy for the media in Uganda. According to the annual report by Freedom House an independent organization that monitors the global media environment in 161 countries - Uganda is ranked at 114 as of 2007 down from 111th position held in 2006.
The report attributes Uganda’s decline in the freedom of the media rankings to harassment and criminal convictions against critical journalists. Editor of Red Pepper Richard Tusiime was recently summoned by police who tried to slam sedition charges against him.
This is part of the harassment designed to intimate the free and independent media. Our constitutional court has since declared the obsolete charges of publishing false news and sedition as being impracticable in the modern world and therefore unconstitutional.
However, these offending provisions of our criminal penal law are still on our statute books with the state hiding under article 43 to justify their regulatory framework. Article 43 basically limits the freedom of expression where such expression would prejudice the fundamental or other human rights and freedoms of others or the public interest.
But as Justice J.N Mulenga stated in the country’s leading authority on this subject-the Supreme court holding in the matter of Charles Onyango-Obbo and Andrew Mujjuni Mwenda vs. Attorney general; a democratic society calls for respect and promotion of the citizens’ individual right to freedom of expression , because it derives benefit from the exercise of that freedom by its citizens.
In order to maintain that benefit, a democratic society chooses to tolerate the exercise of the freedom even in respect of demonstrably untrue and alarming statements. Indeed, as the learned judge pointed out a democratic society tolerates such foolish and sometimes dangerous appeals not because they may prove true but because freedom of speech is indivisible.freed of the press cannot be denied to some ideas and saved for others. The reason is plain enough; no man, no committee and surely no government, has the infinite wisdom and disinterestedness accurately and unselfishly to separate what is true from what is debatable , and both from what is false.
Much as the national Resistance movement has made a demonstrable effort to nature freed of speech and expression through the licensing of over 200 FM stations and tolerating divergent views in the free independent press, there are also instances where government has come-on heavy against such media.
Media owners have at times been put under intense pressure to exercise self censorship in the coverage of public affairs. In some cases the professional careers of journalists and media managers have been put on the wire in the exercise of their constitutional duty to inform the public. Media houses have been threatened with cancellation of operating licences or in worst case scenarios - closures.
But the government should know that they have the constitutional mandate of the people and as such, the people have a constitutional right to know how they are governed. The Supreme Court of India whose jurisprudence similar to that of Uganda has stated that commitment to freedom of expression and the press demands that it cannot be suppressed unless the community interest is endangered.",1]
But as Justice J.N Mulenga stated in the country’s leading authority on this subject-the Supreme court holding in the matter of Charles Onyango-Obbo and Andrew Mujjuni Mwenda vs. Attorney general; a democratic society calls for respect and promotion of the citizens’ individual right to freedom of expression , because it derives benefit from the exercise of that freedom by its citizens.
In order to maintain that benefit, a democratic society chooses to tolerate the exercise of the freedom even in respect of demonstrably untrue and alarming statements. Indeed, as the learned judge pointed out a democratic society tolerates such foolish and sometimes dangerous appeals not because they may prove true but because freedom of speech is indivisible.
This liberty cannot be denied to some ideas and saved for others. The reason is plain enough; no man, no committee and surely no government, has the infinite wisdom and disinterestedness accurately and unselfishly to separate what is true from what is debatable , and both from what is false.
Much as the national Resistance movement has made a demonstrable effort to nature freed of speech and expression through the licensing of over 200 FM stations and tolerating divergent views in the free independent press, there are also instances where government has come-on heavy against such media.
Media owners have at times been put under intense pressure to exercise self censorship in the coverage of public affairs. In some cases the professional careers of journalists and media managers have been put on the wire in the exercise of their constitutional duty to inform the public. Media houses have been threatened with cancellation of operating licences or in worst case scenarios - closures.
But the government should know that they have the constitutional mandate of the people and as such, the people have a constitutional right to know how they are governed. The Supreme Court of India whose jurisprudence similar to that of Uganda has stated that commitment to freedom of expression and the press demands that it cannot be suppressed unless the community interest is endangered.
And the court went ahead to qualify this by stating that the anticipated danger (which permits for limitation on the freedom of expression) should not be remote, conjectural or farfetched. It should be proximate and have direct nexus (connection) with the expression. The expression of thought should be intrinsically dangerous to the public interests.
The right to freedom of the press and expression is very fundamental for our fragile democracy to flourish with an informed society being in position to choose their leaders on the basis of the strength of their record and hold government accountable.
Freedom of press has also an effective tool in supporting participatory development and the fight against corruption.Next week in this column: Churches which have turned into businesses should be taxed.
And the court went ahead to qualify this by stating that the anticipated danger (which permits for limitation on the freedom of expression) should not be remote, conjectural or farfetched. It should be proximate and have direct nexus (connection) with the expression. The expression of thought should be intrinsically dangerous to the public interests.
The right to freedom of the press and expression is very fundamental for our fragile democracy to flourish with an informed society being in position to choose their leaders on the basis of the strength of their record and hold government accountable.
Freedom of press has also an effective tool in supporting participatory development and the fight against corruption. Next week in this column: Churches which have turned into businesses should be taxed.
The writer is a Journalist and Advocate msserwanga@gmail.com
The principle concern of the media as the forth estate of the state, is to break that silence and make our leaders accountable to the wider public.
The constitution of Uganda declares the right to freedom of speech and expression in Article 29 thus: Every person shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, which shall include freedom of the press and other media.
That declaration does not speculate or specify what a person is free to say or express. And this is for good justified reasons; It is difficult to imagine a guaranteed right more important to democratic society than freedom of expression.
Unfortunately, all is not rosy for the media in Uganda. According to the annual report by Freedom House an independent organization that monitors the global media environment in 161 countries - Uganda is ranked at 114 as of 2007 down from 111th position held in 2006.
The report attributes Uganda’s decline in the freedom of the media rankings to harassment and criminal convictions against critical journalists. Editor of Red Pepper Richard Tusiime was recently summoned by police who tried to slam sedition charges against him.
This is part of the harassment designed to intimate the free and independent media. Our constitutional court has since declared the obsolete charges of publishing false news and sedition as being impracticable in the modern world and therefore unconstitutional.
However, these offending provisions of our criminal penal law are still on our statute books with the state hiding under article 43 to justify their regulatory framework. Article 43 basically limits the freedom of expression where such expression would prejudice the fundamental or other human rights and freedoms of others or the public interest.
But as Justice J.N Mulenga stated in the country’s leading authority on this subject-the Supreme court holding in the matter of Charles Onyango-Obbo and Andrew Mujjuni Mwenda vs. Attorney general; a democratic society calls for respect and promotion of the citizens’ individual right to freedom of expression , because it derives benefit from the exercise of that freedom by its citizens.
In order to maintain that benefit, a democratic society chooses to tolerate the exercise of the freedom even in respect of demonstrably untrue and alarming statements. Indeed, as the learned judge pointed out a democratic society tolerates such foolish and sometimes dangerous appeals not because they may prove true but because freedom of speech is indivisible.freed of the press cannot be denied to some ideas and saved for others. The reason is plain enough; no man, no committee and surely no government, has the infinite wisdom and disinterestedness accurately and unselfishly to separate what is true from what is debatable , and both from what is false.
Much as the national Resistance movement has made a demonstrable effort to nature freed of speech and expression through the licensing of over 200 FM stations and tolerating divergent views in the free independent press, there are also instances where government has come-on heavy against such media.
Media owners have at times been put under intense pressure to exercise self censorship in the coverage of public affairs. In some cases the professional careers of journalists and media managers have been put on the wire in the exercise of their constitutional duty to inform the public. Media houses have been threatened with cancellation of operating licences or in worst case scenarios - closures.
But the government should know that they have the constitutional mandate of the people and as such, the people have a constitutional right to know how they are governed. The Supreme Court of India whose jurisprudence similar to that of Uganda has stated that commitment to freedom of expression and the press demands that it cannot be suppressed unless the community interest is endangered.",1]
But as Justice J.N Mulenga stated in the country’s leading authority on this subject-the Supreme court holding in the matter of Charles Onyango-Obbo and Andrew Mujjuni Mwenda vs. Attorney general; a democratic society calls for respect and promotion of the citizens’ individual right to freedom of expression , because it derives benefit from the exercise of that freedom by its citizens.
In order to maintain that benefit, a democratic society chooses to tolerate the exercise of the freedom even in respect of demonstrably untrue and alarming statements. Indeed, as the learned judge pointed out a democratic society tolerates such foolish and sometimes dangerous appeals not because they may prove true but because freedom of speech is indivisible.
This liberty cannot be denied to some ideas and saved for others. The reason is plain enough; no man, no committee and surely no government, has the infinite wisdom and disinterestedness accurately and unselfishly to separate what is true from what is debatable , and both from what is false.
Much as the national Resistance movement has made a demonstrable effort to nature freed of speech and expression through the licensing of over 200 FM stations and tolerating divergent views in the free independent press, there are also instances where government has come-on heavy against such media.
Media owners have at times been put under intense pressure to exercise self censorship in the coverage of public affairs. In some cases the professional careers of journalists and media managers have been put on the wire in the exercise of their constitutional duty to inform the public. Media houses have been threatened with cancellation of operating licences or in worst case scenarios - closures.
But the government should know that they have the constitutional mandate of the people and as such, the people have a constitutional right to know how they are governed. The Supreme Court of India whose jurisprudence similar to that of Uganda has stated that commitment to freedom of expression and the press demands that it cannot be suppressed unless the community interest is endangered.
And the court went ahead to qualify this by stating that the anticipated danger (which permits for limitation on the freedom of expression) should not be remote, conjectural or farfetched. It should be proximate and have direct nexus (connection) with the expression. The expression of thought should be intrinsically dangerous to the public interests.
The right to freedom of the press and expression is very fundamental for our fragile democracy to flourish with an informed society being in position to choose their leaders on the basis of the strength of their record and hold government accountable.
Freedom of press has also an effective tool in supporting participatory development and the fight against corruption.Next week in this column: Churches which have turned into businesses should be taxed.
And the court went ahead to qualify this by stating that the anticipated danger (which permits for limitation on the freedom of expression) should not be remote, conjectural or farfetched. It should be proximate and have direct nexus (connection) with the expression. The expression of thought should be intrinsically dangerous to the public interests.
The right to freedom of the press and expression is very fundamental for our fragile democracy to flourish with an informed society being in position to choose their leaders on the basis of the strength of their record and hold government accountable.
Freedom of press has also an effective tool in supporting participatory development and the fight against corruption. Next week in this column: Churches which have turned into businesses should be taxed.
The writer is a Journalist and Advocate msserwanga@gmail.com
Sunday, May 20, 2007
THE CARNAGE OUR ROADS MUST STOP
THE OTHER SIDE OF LAW
The death toll as a result of the carnage on our national road network has reached 134 and 493 injured in 1,432 accidents recorded nationwide since the year began. This alarming figure of the people who have died in road accidents just three months in the new year represent a threat that cannot be ignored.>> And the disturbing statistics come at the heel of a continental conference: The African Road Safety Conference that was held from 5 - 7 February 2007 in Accra, Ghana to map out ways of stopping the waste on Africa> '> s road network.
The conference co-organised by the World Health Organization and the UN Economic Commission for Africa, with support from a number of agencies, notably the Swedish International Development Agency, the FIA Foundation for the Automobile and Society, the Sub-Saharan African Transport Policy Program, the Global Road Safety Partnership attracted more than 250 delegates including those from Uganda.
The overall theme of the conference - road safety and the millennium development goals; reducing road traffic fatalities by half by 2015 was quite appropriate in light of the deaths so far recorded on our roads.
Among the interesting recommendations that where adopted by the African ministers at the end of the conference included the commitment by the partner member states to educate the general public on road safety matters, taking into consideration, special categories such as drivers and school children.>> The conference also called for the establishment of a lead agency that has proper legal backing, and is empowered and supported by adequate financial resources to ensure that it is well equipped and staffed with appropriately trained personnel.
> But the most significant recommendation to come out of the conference was the one dubbed . This particular recommendation calls for concerted efforts by the partner states to enforce road safety legislation, particularly those related to speed control, control of driving while under the influence of alcohol, pre-hospital and emergency trauma care, use of helmets, and enhancing visibility.
Ironically all the control measures, which were reiterated by the conference participants, are well captured in our Traffic and Road Safety Act a comprehensive piece of legislation which one can argue has been rendered redundant given the rising death rates on our roads.
The problem with our legal system is not the lack of laws rather it s the enforcement of such laws that is terribly lacking. We should also appreciate the fact that most of the reckless driving being witnessed in this country is a replay of the greedy culture in which many Ugandans are brought up.
People in this country are always in a hurry to make a quick buck for no justified reasons. Even your up-start , a fresh from the university graduate wants to earn and eat like a university professor with several years of working experience under the belt. The current recklessness of many of our drivers and road users generally could well be explained from this point of view. Your typical taxi driver is only interested in doubling or tripling a normal day'> s earnings no matter the cost to lives of his/her passengers.
And all this happens in total oblivion of the fundamentals. Traffic offences under the Act are those of strict liability where the burden of proof shifts to the accused person to show that his acts or omissions while on the road are not unlawful. In any case, the law punishes the actus reus (the wrongful act) and not the mens rea (the mental intention) as the case is in other criminal proceedings.
But the most significant recommendation to come out of the conference was the one dubbed Quick wins . This particular recommendation calls for concerted efforts by the partner states to enforce road safety legislation, particularly those related to speed control, control of driving while under the influence of alcohol, pre-hospital and emergency trauma care, use of helmets, and enhancing visibility.
Ironically all the control measures, which were reiterated by the conference participants, are well captured in our Traffic and Road Safety Act a comprehensive piece of legislation which one can argue has been rendered redundant given the rising death rates on our roads.
The problem with our legal system is not the lack of laws rather it> '> s the enforcement of such laws that is terribly lacking. We should also appreciate the fact that most of the reckless driving being witnessed in this country is a replay of the greedy culture in which many Ugandans are brought up.
People in this country are always in a hurry to make a quick buck for no justified reasons. Even your up-start , a fresh from the university graduate wants to earn and eat like a university professor with several years of working experience under the belt. The current recklessness of many of our drivers and road users generally could well be explained from this point of view. Your typical taxi driver is only interested in doubling or tripling a normal day ' s earnings no matter the cost to lives of his/her passengers.
And all this happens in total oblivion of the fundamentals. Traffic offences under the Act are those of strict liability where the burden of proof shifts to the accused person to show that his acts or omissions while on the road are not unlawful. In any case, the law punishes the actus reus (the wrongful act) and not the mens rea (the mental intention) as the case is in other criminal proceedings.
Its unfortunate however, that irrespective of all these strict measures much of our traffic laws continue to be flouted with impunity. For starters ,omnibuses, the heavy and medium goods motor vehicles and heavy tractor are supposed to be driven by a person who is well over the age of 25 and certified by a medical practitioner to be in good physical and mental health.
There are also special provisions for one to drive public service vehicles. A person under the law is not allowed to drive a public service vehicle or a private omnibus unless when he has held a driving permit for a Group B motor vehicle (motorcars) for not less than five years and completed the required tests. The law further provides that before issuing a licence to carry passengers or goods in respect of any goods vehicle, the Transport Licensing Board shall require the applicant to produce an inspection report showing that the goods vehicle has been examined by an inspector of vehicles and that a certificate of fitness to carry passengers or goods has been issued in respect of the goods vehicle.
More still the law enjoins the Minister of Transport to cause the road passenger transport Industry to be organized, as far as possible, on a route basis, and the business to be divided into express and local services so that licensed operators keep within their catchment areas and the routes for which they are licensed to ensure proper management and policing .
The question is: has the minister responsible carried out this duty? How many drivers in this country satisfy the above requirements before they taken on the responsibility of driving public omnibuses?
You will agree with me that many of the chaps that are seen speeding in the taxi commuters are school dropouts much below the age of 20 but our law enforcers will allow this to pass.
Similarly although there is a very elaborate procedure, which has to be followed before one secures a driving permit under section 42 of the Traffic and Road safety Act -its common knowledge in Uganda that many drivers get permits long before they even touch a steering wheel. Its unfortunate however, that irrespective of all these strict measures much of our traffic laws continue to be flouted with impunity. For starters ,omnibuses, the heavy and medium goods motor vehicles and heavy tractor are supposed to be driven by a person who is well over the age of 25 and certified by a medical practitioner to be in good physical and mental health.>> There are also special provisions for one to drive public service vehicles. A person under the law is not allowed to drive a public service vehicle or a private omnibus unless when he has held a driving permit for a Group B motor vehicle (motorcars) for not less than five years and completed the required tests.
The law further provides that before issuing a licence to carry passengers or goods in respect of any goods vehicle, the Transport Licensing Board shall require the applicant to produce an inspection report showing that the goods vehicle has been examined by an inspector of vehicles and that a certificate of fitness to carry passengers or goods has been issued in respect of the goods vehicle.
More still the law enjoins the Minister of Transport to cause the road passenger transport Industry to be organized, as far as possible, on a route basis, and the business to be divided into express and local services so that licensed operators keep within their catchment areas and the routes for which they are licensed to ensure proper management and policing .
The question is: has the minister responsible carried out this duty? How many drivers in this country satisfy the above requirements before they taken on the responsibility of driving public omnibuses?
You will agree with me that many of the chaps that are seen speeding in the taxi commuters are school dropouts much below the age of 20 but our law enforcers will allow this to pass. Similarly although there is a very elaborate procedure, which has to be followed before one secures a driving permit under section 42 of the Traffic and Road safety Act -its common knowledge in Uganda that many drivers ' get permits long before they even touch a steering wheel.
s the government responsibility through the traffic police helped by road safety campaigners to stop the madness on our roads.s the government responsibility through the traffic police helped by road safety campaigners to stop the madness on our roads. Next week in this column: Government should not charge Journalists under the sedition criminal law because it was declared unconstitutional. The writer is a Journalist and Advocate.> msserwanga@gmail.com> 0772 43 46 77
The death toll as a result of the carnage on our national road network has reached 134 and 493 injured in 1,432 accidents recorded nationwide since the year began. This alarming figure of the people who have died in road accidents just three months in the new year represent a threat that cannot be ignored.>> And the disturbing statistics come at the heel of a continental conference: The African Road Safety Conference that was held from 5 - 7 February 2007 in Accra, Ghana to map out ways of stopping the waste on Africa> '> s road network.
The conference co-organised by the World Health Organization and the UN Economic Commission for Africa, with support from a number of agencies, notably the Swedish International Development Agency, the FIA Foundation for the Automobile and Society, the Sub-Saharan African Transport Policy Program, the Global Road Safety Partnership attracted more than 250 delegates including those from Uganda.
The overall theme of the conference - road safety and the millennium development goals; reducing road traffic fatalities by half by 2015 was quite appropriate in light of the deaths so far recorded on our roads.
Among the interesting recommendations that where adopted by the African ministers at the end of the conference included the commitment by the partner member states to educate the general public on road safety matters, taking into consideration, special categories such as drivers and school children.>> The conference also called for the establishment of a lead agency that has proper legal backing, and is empowered and supported by adequate financial resources to ensure that it is well equipped and staffed with appropriately trained personnel.
> But the most significant recommendation to come out of the conference was the one dubbed . This particular recommendation calls for concerted efforts by the partner states to enforce road safety legislation, particularly those related to speed control, control of driving while under the influence of alcohol, pre-hospital and emergency trauma care, use of helmets, and enhancing visibility.
Ironically all the control measures, which were reiterated by the conference participants, are well captured in our Traffic and Road Safety Act a comprehensive piece of legislation which one can argue has been rendered redundant given the rising death rates on our roads.
The problem with our legal system is not the lack of laws rather it s the enforcement of such laws that is terribly lacking. We should also appreciate the fact that most of the reckless driving being witnessed in this country is a replay of the greedy culture in which many Ugandans are brought up.
People in this country are always in a hurry to make a quick buck for no justified reasons. Even your up-start , a fresh from the university graduate wants to earn and eat like a university professor with several years of working experience under the belt. The current recklessness of many of our drivers and road users generally could well be explained from this point of view. Your typical taxi driver is only interested in doubling or tripling a normal day'> s earnings no matter the cost to lives of his/her passengers.
And all this happens in total oblivion of the fundamentals. Traffic offences under the Act are those of strict liability where the burden of proof shifts to the accused person to show that his acts or omissions while on the road are not unlawful. In any case, the law punishes the actus reus (the wrongful act) and not the mens rea (the mental intention) as the case is in other criminal proceedings.
But the most significant recommendation to come out of the conference was the one dubbed Quick wins . This particular recommendation calls for concerted efforts by the partner states to enforce road safety legislation, particularly those related to speed control, control of driving while under the influence of alcohol, pre-hospital and emergency trauma care, use of helmets, and enhancing visibility.
Ironically all the control measures, which were reiterated by the conference participants, are well captured in our Traffic and Road Safety Act a comprehensive piece of legislation which one can argue has been rendered redundant given the rising death rates on our roads.
The problem with our legal system is not the lack of laws rather it> '> s the enforcement of such laws that is terribly lacking. We should also appreciate the fact that most of the reckless driving being witnessed in this country is a replay of the greedy culture in which many Ugandans are brought up.
People in this country are always in a hurry to make a quick buck for no justified reasons. Even your up-start , a fresh from the university graduate wants to earn and eat like a university professor with several years of working experience under the belt. The current recklessness of many of our drivers and road users generally could well be explained from this point of view. Your typical taxi driver is only interested in doubling or tripling a normal day ' s earnings no matter the cost to lives of his/her passengers.
And all this happens in total oblivion of the fundamentals. Traffic offences under the Act are those of strict liability where the burden of proof shifts to the accused person to show that his acts or omissions while on the road are not unlawful. In any case, the law punishes the actus reus (the wrongful act) and not the mens rea (the mental intention) as the case is in other criminal proceedings.
Its unfortunate however, that irrespective of all these strict measures much of our traffic laws continue to be flouted with impunity. For starters ,omnibuses, the heavy and medium goods motor vehicles and heavy tractor are supposed to be driven by a person who is well over the age of 25 and certified by a medical practitioner to be in good physical and mental health.
There are also special provisions for one to drive public service vehicles. A person under the law is not allowed to drive a public service vehicle or a private omnibus unless when he has held a driving permit for a Group B motor vehicle (motorcars) for not less than five years and completed the required tests. The law further provides that before issuing a licence to carry passengers or goods in respect of any goods vehicle, the Transport Licensing Board shall require the applicant to produce an inspection report showing that the goods vehicle has been examined by an inspector of vehicles and that a certificate of fitness to carry passengers or goods has been issued in respect of the goods vehicle.
More still the law enjoins the Minister of Transport to cause the road passenger transport Industry to be organized, as far as possible, on a route basis, and the business to be divided into express and local services so that licensed operators keep within their catchment areas and the routes for which they are licensed to ensure proper management and policing .
The question is: has the minister responsible carried out this duty? How many drivers in this country satisfy the above requirements before they taken on the responsibility of driving public omnibuses?
You will agree with me that many of the chaps that are seen speeding in the taxi commuters are school dropouts much below the age of 20 but our law enforcers will allow this to pass.
Similarly although there is a very elaborate procedure, which has to be followed before one secures a driving permit under section 42 of the Traffic and Road safety Act -its common knowledge in Uganda that many drivers get permits long before they even touch a steering wheel. Its unfortunate however, that irrespective of all these strict measures much of our traffic laws continue to be flouted with impunity. For starters ,omnibuses, the heavy and medium goods motor vehicles and heavy tractor are supposed to be driven by a person who is well over the age of 25 and certified by a medical practitioner to be in good physical and mental health.>> There are also special provisions for one to drive public service vehicles. A person under the law is not allowed to drive a public service vehicle or a private omnibus unless when he has held a driving permit for a Group B motor vehicle (motorcars) for not less than five years and completed the required tests.
The law further provides that before issuing a licence to carry passengers or goods in respect of any goods vehicle, the Transport Licensing Board shall require the applicant to produce an inspection report showing that the goods vehicle has been examined by an inspector of vehicles and that a certificate of fitness to carry passengers or goods has been issued in respect of the goods vehicle.
More still the law enjoins the Minister of Transport to cause the road passenger transport Industry to be organized, as far as possible, on a route basis, and the business to be divided into express and local services so that licensed operators keep within their catchment areas and the routes for which they are licensed to ensure proper management and policing .
The question is: has the minister responsible carried out this duty? How many drivers in this country satisfy the above requirements before they taken on the responsibility of driving public omnibuses?
You will agree with me that many of the chaps that are seen speeding in the taxi commuters are school dropouts much below the age of 20 but our law enforcers will allow this to pass. Similarly although there is a very elaborate procedure, which has to be followed before one secures a driving permit under section 42 of the Traffic and Road safety Act -its common knowledge in Uganda that many drivers ' get permits long before they even touch a steering wheel.
s the government responsibility through the traffic police helped by road safety campaigners to stop the madness on our roads.s the government responsibility through the traffic police helped by road safety campaigners to stop the madness on our roads. Next week in this column: Government should not charge Journalists under the sedition criminal law because it was declared unconstitutional. The writer is a Journalist and Advocate.> msserwanga@gmail.com> 0772 43 46 77
Govermnet should listen to the public over Mabira
The row between the public and government over the forest giveaways, spilled over to the mobile telephone networks last week and has now reached the courts of law. Civil society organizations led by Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment (ACCODE) have filed three major suits to save the environment.
Other stake holders including the Uganda Land Alliance have intimated that they too will lodge in courts of law public interest suits to save what is remaining of the country’s forest cover.
But what is not known to the wider public is the fact that government has not enforced many court orders that have been issued in recent years to protect and promote a clean and health environment.
One of such cases is the long forgotten Butamira forest reserve in Jinja which has been destroyed by a private sugar company, Kakira Sugar Works ltd. In 2004 justice Rubby Aweri Opio, held inter alia that the 50 year permit that government issued to Kakira Sugar Works Ltd to grow sugar cane in Butamira forest reserve was unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
The judge’s ruling was based on evidence adduced in court to the effect that no project brief, Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Impact statement were carried out by the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) and Kakira Sugar Works Ltd.
The lawyers who represented ACCODE the organization that sued government and NEMA, argued to the satisfaction of the judge that the government’s decision to grant a permit to Kakira would significantly change the land use of the gazetted forest reserve and as a result violate the citizens’ constitutional rights to a clean and healthy environment , as well as ,the protection of the country’s natural resources.
Under the Constitution of Uganda vital natural resources such forests are managed by the government in trust for all the people of Uganda. Butamira is one such resource that has to be protected for the common good of the citizens.
Court stated in the Butamira case that government has no authority to lease out or alienate the forest reserves. Government or a local governments can only grant concessions or licenses or permits for exploitation of natural resources with authority from parliament and with consent from the local communities.
In the Butamira case evidence was produced in court to show that the permit was issued to Kakira Sugar Works Ltd amidst protests from the local communities which formed a pressure group of over 1500 people who depended on the reserve for their livelihood. The people living around the forest were engaged in agro-forestry and the forest was their source of water, fuel, medicine and other forms of sustenance.
Unfortunately, three years down the road ,government has not effected the court order to cancel the permit that was issued to Kakira Sugar Works Ltd. The illegal activities of Kakira have continued un-abetted and sadly now, almost the entire forest cover in Butamira has been wiped out.
Government and its implementing Agency NEMA have not showed goodwill nor have they collaborated with the judiciary to enforce a court order in the case of Butamira. The Ugandan people especially the communities around these resources deserve better. Government’s deforestation for industrialization policy should be halted because saving the country from the adverse effects of desertification is both a legal and moral issue .
Government seems hell bent at implementing the Victorian capitalists ideas that operate around Darwin’s notion of ‘survival of the fittest’ That the fittest (read) the rich not only survive but prosper and that the measures to help the poor (in this case the communities that live around the forests) are wasteful since such people are deemed to be unfit and thus doomed to sink.
Greed and the pursuit of wealth should not be at the expense of our national/ natural resources such as forests. The intergenerational environmental law principle calls for equity in the exploitation of environmental resources between generations.
The principle demands that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations. The principle therefore, confers rights on future generations and imposes a correlative duty of good stewardship over environmental resources on present generations.The International court of Justice has already pronounced it’s self on this principle further giving it efficacy. The court has stated that the environment is not an abstraction but represents the living space, forests , water ,the quality of life and the very health of humans, including generations unborn.
Next week in this column: Journalists should not be charged under the sedition law because its un-constitutional.
The writer is a Journalist and Advocate msserwanga@gmail.com 0772 43 46 77
Other stake holders including the Uganda Land Alliance have intimated that they too will lodge in courts of law public interest suits to save what is remaining of the country’s forest cover.
But what is not known to the wider public is the fact that government has not enforced many court orders that have been issued in recent years to protect and promote a clean and health environment.
One of such cases is the long forgotten Butamira forest reserve in Jinja which has been destroyed by a private sugar company, Kakira Sugar Works ltd. In 2004 justice Rubby Aweri Opio, held inter alia that the 50 year permit that government issued to Kakira Sugar Works Ltd to grow sugar cane in Butamira forest reserve was unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
The judge’s ruling was based on evidence adduced in court to the effect that no project brief, Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Impact statement were carried out by the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) and Kakira Sugar Works Ltd.
The lawyers who represented ACCODE the organization that sued government and NEMA, argued to the satisfaction of the judge that the government’s decision to grant a permit to Kakira would significantly change the land use of the gazetted forest reserve and as a result violate the citizens’ constitutional rights to a clean and healthy environment , as well as ,the protection of the country’s natural resources.
Under the Constitution of Uganda vital natural resources such forests are managed by the government in trust for all the people of Uganda. Butamira is one such resource that has to be protected for the common good of the citizens.
Court stated in the Butamira case that government has no authority to lease out or alienate the forest reserves. Government or a local governments can only grant concessions or licenses or permits for exploitation of natural resources with authority from parliament and with consent from the local communities.
In the Butamira case evidence was produced in court to show that the permit was issued to Kakira Sugar Works Ltd amidst protests from the local communities which formed a pressure group of over 1500 people who depended on the reserve for their livelihood. The people living around the forest were engaged in agro-forestry and the forest was their source of water, fuel, medicine and other forms of sustenance.
Unfortunately, three years down the road ,government has not effected the court order to cancel the permit that was issued to Kakira Sugar Works Ltd. The illegal activities of Kakira have continued un-abetted and sadly now, almost the entire forest cover in Butamira has been wiped out.
Government and its implementing Agency NEMA have not showed goodwill nor have they collaborated with the judiciary to enforce a court order in the case of Butamira. The Ugandan people especially the communities around these resources deserve better. Government’s deforestation for industrialization policy should be halted because saving the country from the adverse effects of desertification is both a legal and moral issue .
Government seems hell bent at implementing the Victorian capitalists ideas that operate around Darwin’s notion of ‘survival of the fittest’ That the fittest (read) the rich not only survive but prosper and that the measures to help the poor (in this case the communities that live around the forests) are wasteful since such people are deemed to be unfit and thus doomed to sink.
Greed and the pursuit of wealth should not be at the expense of our national/ natural resources such as forests. The intergenerational environmental law principle calls for equity in the exploitation of environmental resources between generations.
The principle demands that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations. The principle therefore, confers rights on future generations and imposes a correlative duty of good stewardship over environmental resources on present generations.The International court of Justice has already pronounced it’s self on this principle further giving it efficacy. The court has stated that the environment is not an abstraction but represents the living space, forests , water ,the quality of life and the very health of humans, including generations unborn.
Next week in this column: Journalists should not be charged under the sedition law because its un-constitutional.
The writer is a Journalist and Advocate msserwanga@gmail.com 0772 43 46 77
The recent pronouncements by the Constitution Court which effectively annulled several provisions of the Succession Act as being unconstitutional have caused mixed reactions among the public.
Again much of what has been stated is a misrepresentation or misinterpretation of the Constitutional Court’s decision. The Law and Advocacy for Women challenged some sections of the Succession Act.
One of the sections of the Act which were challenged for being unconstitutional was Section 27 which provided for only male intestacy. Intestacy under the law simply refers to a situation where a person dies without having written a will. This has several legal implications and that’s why it’s very important for any person of mature age to make a will whenever they acquire property.
And because the offensive section 27 only provided for male intestacy it obviously unjustifiably left out women and this had the unfair legal effect that women were presumed not to have property to bequeath. The section had its roots in the mediaeval times where women were treated as men’s chattel with no rights under the English Common law which we inherited.
The same section only allowed for 15% of the deceased husband’s estate to be given to his widow upon death while a widower enjoyed 100% of his deceased wife’s estate. The section ignored the women’s contribution to their husband’s estate. And people should know the distiction here. Matrinonial property under the law is treated differently is personal property.
This is irrespective of the fact that women in many of our traditional marriages/settings are basically treated as labourers in the home. They till the land, look after the children and even buy much of the matrimonial property while the men are out socializing. And people should know the distiction here. Matrimonial property excludes personal property.
\u003c/p\>\n\n\u003cp\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Times New Roman\"\> Rule 8 (a) of the Second Schedule Succession Act which provided that a widow’s right of occupancy in a residential holding terminated upon re-marriage while that of a man terminated upon death also came into issue before the constitutional court together with Section 43 of the Succession Act which provided that guardians are only appointed by the father. The mother’s parental rights were undermined . \u003c/font\>\u003c/p\>\n\u003cbr\>\n\n\u003cp\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Times New Roman\"\>The question which had to be determined by the Constitutional Court was why a guardian should be appointed when the mother of a child is still alive. And further still, why a mother couldn’t be appointed a guardian. \u003c/font\>\u003c/p\>\n\n\u003cp\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Times New Roman\"\> \u003c/font\>\n\n\u003cbr\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Times New Roman\"\>The above sections together with Section 2 (n) (i) and Section S. 44 of the Succession Act which gave preferential treatment to male lineage over the female lineage in choosing legal and statutory guardians were all declared constitutional and therefore null and void. \u003c/font\>\u003c/p\>\n\n\u003cp\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Times New Roman\"\> \u003c/font\>\n\n\u003cbr\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Times New Roman\"\>Similarly Section 14 of the Succession Act which awarded automatic acquisition of domicile upon marriage to a woman and not to man and Section 15 which terminated a woman’s acquired domicile upon legal separation was also declared unconstitutional. \u003c/font\>\u003c/p\>\n\n\u003cp\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Times New Roman\"\>Domicile under the law simply means the place of aboard of the parties in marriage. The effect of this is that before the decision of the court, women unlike men acquired automatic domicile of their spouse upon marriage. This meant that when say an Indian lady married a Ugandan man, she automatically had to be subjected to the legal regime obtaining in Uganda but the same was no possible for a man. So if effect the law was discriminatory against women since they had no choice of domicile upon marriage which the court found unconstitutional.
Rule 8 (a) of the Second Schedule Succession Act which provided that a widow’s right of occupancy in a residential holding terminated upon re-marriage while that of a man terminated upon death also came into issue before the constitutional court together with Section 43 of the Succession Act which provided that guardians are only appointed by the father. The mother’s parental rights were undermined .
The question which had to be determined by the Constitutional Court was why a guardian should be appointed when the mother of a child is still alive. And further still, why a mother couldn’t be appointed a guardian.
The above sections together with Section 2 (n) (i) and Section S. 44 of the Succession Act which gave preferential treatment to male lineage over the female lineage in choosing legal and statutory guardians were all declared constitutional and therefore null and void.
Similarly Section 14 of the Succession Act which awarded automatic acquisition of domicile upon marriage to a woman and not to man and Section 15 which terminated a woman’s acquired domicile upon legal separation was also declared unconstitutional.
Domicile under the law simply means the place of aboard of the parties in marriage. The effect of this is that before the decision of the court, women unlike men acquired automatic domicile of their spouse upon marriage. This meant that when say an Indian lady married a Ugandan man, she automatically had to be subjected to the legal regime obtaining in Uganda but the same was no possible for a man. So if effect the law was discriminatory against women since they had no choice of domicile upon marriage which the court found unconstitutional.
But the most misinterpreted part of the Constitution Court judgment is that to do with male lineage over that of female in choosing legal and statutory guardians mostly in cases of intestacy (where a person dies without a will). Many people believe that the court’s decision in effect abolished male heir(s) which is normally practiced in some traditions like in Buganda.
This is not true. You can still have a heir under any given traditional practice(s) and a guardian with legal or statutory powers at the same time.\
And this is where section 44 was problematic. It only provided for the male lineage when appointing the legal and statutory guardians .The constitutional Court found the section to be repugnant since it did not accord equal treatment to the female lineage in choosing such representation.
It’s now incumbent upon the Attorney General the legal representative of government to move parliament to repeal or amend the sections which have been found repugnant so that they give efficacy to the provisions of the constitution which call for fairness and equality for all before the law. The same sections rendered married women second class citizens in that their domicile was transient and dependant on that of their husband’s whereas that of married men remained permanent.
But the most misinterpreted part of the Constitution Court judgment is that to do with male lineage over that of female in choosing legal and statutory guardians mostly in cases of intestacy (where a person dies without a will). Many people believe that the court’s decision in effect abolished male heir(s) which is normally practiced in some traditions like in Buganda.
This is not true. You can still have a heir under any given traditional practice(s) and a guardian with legal or statutory powers at the same time.
And this is where section 44 was problematic. It only provided for the male lineage when appointing the legal and statutory guardians .The constitutional Court found the section to be repugnant since it did not accord equal treatment to the female lineage in choosing such representation.
It’s now incumbent upon the Attorney General the legal representative of government to move parliament to repeal or amend the sections which have been found repugnant so that they give efficacy to the provisions of the constitution which call for fairness and equality for all before the law.
In this column next week:Parliament and President Museveni should consider the public trust doctrine when deciding the fate of Mabira forest.
The writer is a Journalist and Advocate msserwanga@gmail.com 0772 43 46 77
Again much of what has been stated is a misrepresentation or misinterpretation of the Constitutional Court’s decision. The Law and Advocacy for Women challenged some sections of the Succession Act.
One of the sections of the Act which were challenged for being unconstitutional was Section 27 which provided for only male intestacy. Intestacy under the law simply refers to a situation where a person dies without having written a will. This has several legal implications and that’s why it’s very important for any person of mature age to make a will whenever they acquire property.
And because the offensive section 27 only provided for male intestacy it obviously unjustifiably left out women and this had the unfair legal effect that women were presumed not to have property to bequeath. The section had its roots in the mediaeval times where women were treated as men’s chattel with no rights under the English Common law which we inherited.
The same section only allowed for 15% of the deceased husband’s estate to be given to his widow upon death while a widower enjoyed 100% of his deceased wife’s estate. The section ignored the women’s contribution to their husband’s estate. And people should know the distiction here. Matrinonial property under the law is treated differently is personal property.
This is irrespective of the fact that women in many of our traditional marriages/settings are basically treated as labourers in the home. They till the land, look after the children and even buy much of the matrimonial property while the men are out socializing. And people should know the distiction here. Matrimonial property excludes personal property.
\u003c/p\>\n\n\u003cp\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Times New Roman\"\> Rule 8 (a) of the Second Schedule Succession Act which provided that a widow’s right of occupancy in a residential holding terminated upon re-marriage while that of a man terminated upon death also came into issue before the constitutional court together with Section 43 of the Succession Act which provided that guardians are only appointed by the father. The mother’s parental rights were undermined . \u003c/font\>\u003c/p\>\n\u003cbr\>\n\n\u003cp\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Times New Roman\"\>The question which had to be determined by the Constitutional Court was why a guardian should be appointed when the mother of a child is still alive. And further still, why a mother couldn’t be appointed a guardian. \u003c/font\>\u003c/p\>\n\n\u003cp\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Times New Roman\"\> \u003c/font\>\n\n\u003cbr\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Times New Roman\"\>The above sections together with Section 2 (n) (i) and Section S. 44 of the Succession Act which gave preferential treatment to male lineage over the female lineage in choosing legal and statutory guardians were all declared constitutional and therefore null and void. \u003c/font\>\u003c/p\>\n\n\u003cp\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Times New Roman\"\> \u003c/font\>\n\n\u003cbr\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Times New Roman\"\>Similarly Section 14 of the Succession Act which awarded automatic acquisition of domicile upon marriage to a woman and not to man and Section 15 which terminated a woman’s acquired domicile upon legal separation was also declared unconstitutional. \u003c/font\>\u003c/p\>\n\n\u003cp\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Times New Roman\"\>Domicile under the law simply means the place of aboard of the parties in marriage. The effect of this is that before the decision of the court, women unlike men acquired automatic domicile of their spouse upon marriage. This meant that when say an Indian lady married a Ugandan man, she automatically had to be subjected to the legal regime obtaining in Uganda but the same was no possible for a man. So if effect the law was discriminatory against women since they had no choice of domicile upon marriage which the court found unconstitutional.
Rule 8 (a) of the Second Schedule Succession Act which provided that a widow’s right of occupancy in a residential holding terminated upon re-marriage while that of a man terminated upon death also came into issue before the constitutional court together with Section 43 of the Succession Act which provided that guardians are only appointed by the father. The mother’s parental rights were undermined .
The question which had to be determined by the Constitutional Court was why a guardian should be appointed when the mother of a child is still alive. And further still, why a mother couldn’t be appointed a guardian.
The above sections together with Section 2 (n) (i) and Section S. 44 of the Succession Act which gave preferential treatment to male lineage over the female lineage in choosing legal and statutory guardians were all declared constitutional and therefore null and void.
Similarly Section 14 of the Succession Act which awarded automatic acquisition of domicile upon marriage to a woman and not to man and Section 15 which terminated a woman’s acquired domicile upon legal separation was also declared unconstitutional.
Domicile under the law simply means the place of aboard of the parties in marriage. The effect of this is that before the decision of the court, women unlike men acquired automatic domicile of their spouse upon marriage. This meant that when say an Indian lady married a Ugandan man, she automatically had to be subjected to the legal regime obtaining in Uganda but the same was no possible for a man. So if effect the law was discriminatory against women since they had no choice of domicile upon marriage which the court found unconstitutional.
But the most misinterpreted part of the Constitution Court judgment is that to do with male lineage over that of female in choosing legal and statutory guardians mostly in cases of intestacy (where a person dies without a will). Many people believe that the court’s decision in effect abolished male heir(s) which is normally practiced in some traditions like in Buganda.
This is not true. You can still have a heir under any given traditional practice(s) and a guardian with legal or statutory powers at the same time.\
And this is where section 44 was problematic. It only provided for the male lineage when appointing the legal and statutory guardians .The constitutional Court found the section to be repugnant since it did not accord equal treatment to the female lineage in choosing such representation.
It’s now incumbent upon the Attorney General the legal representative of government to move parliament to repeal or amend the sections which have been found repugnant so that they give efficacy to the provisions of the constitution which call for fairness and equality for all before the law. The same sections rendered married women second class citizens in that their domicile was transient and dependant on that of their husband’s whereas that of married men remained permanent.
But the most misinterpreted part of the Constitution Court judgment is that to do with male lineage over that of female in choosing legal and statutory guardians mostly in cases of intestacy (where a person dies without a will). Many people believe that the court’s decision in effect abolished male heir(s) which is normally practiced in some traditions like in Buganda.
This is not true. You can still have a heir under any given traditional practice(s) and a guardian with legal or statutory powers at the same time.
And this is where section 44 was problematic. It only provided for the male lineage when appointing the legal and statutory guardians .The constitutional Court found the section to be repugnant since it did not accord equal treatment to the female lineage in choosing such representation.
It’s now incumbent upon the Attorney General the legal representative of government to move parliament to repeal or amend the sections which have been found repugnant so that they give efficacy to the provisions of the constitution which call for fairness and equality for all before the law.
In this column next week:Parliament and President Museveni should consider the public trust doctrine when deciding the fate of Mabira forest.
The writer is a Journalist and Advocate msserwanga@gmail.com 0772 43 46 77
Its so important to save the copuntry's forest cover
Last week cabinet ordered for a fresh study on the implications of giving away Mabira forest reserve for sugar cane growing. The cabinet’s decision again sent strong political signals that government and President Yoweri Museveni are not about to give up on their schemes to alienate the natural tropical forest.
The campaign to save the 29,964 hectares of Mabira central forest reserve is of a global scale with numerous international environmental organizations calling upon the Uganda government to preserve what is remaining of the world’s forest cover.
Ironically, this new cabinet decisions comes at a time when a leaked, detailed cabinet memo on Mabira which was prepared by the Ministry of water and Environment clearly argued the case against the destruction of the natural forest reserve.
The Ministry’s memo rightly reminded government about its international and local obligations to conserve and sustainably utilize biological resources. The memo further highlights the severe negative impact of changing the land use of 7,100 hectares of natural forests to sugarcane ;which among others, will lead to reduction in water flow to the lakes and rivers in the region, change in temperatures, loss of unique ecosystem whose economic value is estimated at shs. 23.3bn.
But the most disturbing aspect about this saga is the fact that the alienation of Mabira forest is orchestrated by a private company the Mehta Group which the government has already given a whooping shs. 29.7bn tax payers’ money in compensation for its losses.
Mr. Suresh Sharma one of Scoul’s directors has had the audacity to tell the nation that Mabira forest is the most appropriate for sugar cane growing. He has also had the impudence to state that the company could not drop its interests over Mabira.
Sharma should know that the Forest and Tree Planting Act which was enacted by parliament to protect forests for the benefit of the present and future generals imposes a personal legal duty and penalty for anyone who illegally destroys the country forest resources.
It’s equally important for our national leaders especially the cabinet and parliament to note that as they consider the fate of Mabira forest ,experts assessing the dangers posed to civilisation have added climate change to the prospect of nuclear annihilation ,as the greatest threats to humankind.
according to Ice evidence The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the experts have as a result, moved the minute hand on their famous "Doomsday Clock" two minutes closer to midnight. The concept timepiece, devised by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS), now stands at five minutes to the hour.
The decision to move it came after BAS directors and affiliated scientists held discussions to reassess the idea of doomsday and what posed the most grievous threats to civilisation. Growing global nuclear instability has led humanity to the brink of a "Second Nuclear Age," the group concluded, and the threat posed by climate change is second only to that posed by nuclear weapons.
Its broad assessment is that the warning over the last few decades is attributable to human activities(such as the Uganda government’s deforestation agenda- emphasis mine) and that its consequences are observable in such events as the melting of Arctic ice. In the years ahead, rising sea levels, heat waves, desertification, along with new disease outbreaks and wars over arable land and water, would mean climate change could bring widespread destruction, the BAS board warned.
all this paints a gloomy forecast or a “doomsday” as the BAS board terms it, we have laws in this country and international instruments to which Uganda is signatory -that can be employed to stave off or mitigate the effects of global warming through forest conservation. ",1]
Sharma should know that the Forest and Tree Planting Act which was enacted by parliament to protect forests for the benefit of the present and future generals imposes a personal legal duty and penalty for anyone who illegally destroys the country forest resources.
It’s equally important for our national leaders especially the cabinet and parliament to note that as they consider the fate of Mabira forest ,experts assessing the dangers posed to civilisation have added climate change to the prospect of nuclear annihilation ,as the greatest threats to humankind.
According to Ice evidence The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the experts have as a result, moved the minute hand on their famous "Doomsday Clock" two minutes closer to midnight. The concept timepiece, devised by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS), now stands at five minutes to the hour.
The decision to move it came after BAS directors and affiliated scientists held discussions to reassess the idea of doomsday and what posed the most grievous threats to civilisation. Growing global nuclear instability has led humanity to the brink of a "Second Nuclear Age," the group concluded, and the threat posed by climate change is second only to that posed by nuclear weapons.
Its broad assessment is that the warning over the last few decades is attributable to human activities(such as the Uganda government’s deforestation agenda- emphasis mine) and that its consequences are observable in such events as the melting of Arctic ice. In the years ahead, rising sea levels, heat waves, desertification, along with new disease outbreaks and wars over arable land and water, would mean climate change could bring widespread destruction, the BAS board warned.
Much as all this paints a gloomy forecast or a “doomsday” as the BAS board terms it, we have laws in this country and international instruments to which Uganda is signatory -that can be employed to stave off or mitigate the effects of global warming through forest conservation.
\u003c/p\>\n\n\u003cp\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Times New Roman\"\>The constitution provides for the Public Trust Doctrine in the management of our natural resources. A new amendment to our constitution article 8A (1) has transformed the 1995 guiding principles to provide that " Uganda shall be governed based on principles of national interest and common good enshrined in the national objectives and the principles of state policy.
The government of Uganda led by President Museveni should listen to the voices of the Ugandan people the majority of who are opposed to the destruction of Mabira forest reserve. Good governance calls for a democratic government and society where the leaders listen and adopt the aspirations of the people they lead.
Posterity shall treat our national leaders harshly for the wrong decisions they make about the management of natural resources.Next week in this column: Is the law adequate to fight racism.
The constitution provides for the Public Trust Doctrine in the management of our natural resources. A new amendment to our constitution article 8A (1) has transformed the 1995 guiding principles to provide that " Uganda shall be governed based on principles of national interest and common good enshrined in the national objectives and the principles of state policy.The government of Uganda led by President Museveni should listen to the voices of the Ugandan people the majority of who are opposed to the destruction of Mabira forest reserve. Good governance calls for a democratic government and society where the leaders listen and adopt the aspirations of the people they lead.
Posterity shall treat our national leaders harshly for the wrong decisions they make about the management of natural resources.
Next week in this column: Is the law adequate to fight racism. The writer is a Journalist and Advocate msserwanga@gmail.com 0772 43 46 77
The campaign to save the 29,964 hectares of Mabira central forest reserve is of a global scale with numerous international environmental organizations calling upon the Uganda government to preserve what is remaining of the world’s forest cover.
Ironically, this new cabinet decisions comes at a time when a leaked, detailed cabinet memo on Mabira which was prepared by the Ministry of water and Environment clearly argued the case against the destruction of the natural forest reserve.
The Ministry’s memo rightly reminded government about its international and local obligations to conserve and sustainably utilize biological resources. The memo further highlights the severe negative impact of changing the land use of 7,100 hectares of natural forests to sugarcane ;which among others, will lead to reduction in water flow to the lakes and rivers in the region, change in temperatures, loss of unique ecosystem whose economic value is estimated at shs. 23.3bn.
But the most disturbing aspect about this saga is the fact that the alienation of Mabira forest is orchestrated by a private company the Mehta Group which the government has already given a whooping shs. 29.7bn tax payers’ money in compensation for its losses.
Mr. Suresh Sharma one of Scoul’s directors has had the audacity to tell the nation that Mabira forest is the most appropriate for sugar cane growing. He has also had the impudence to state that the company could not drop its interests over Mabira.
Sharma should know that the Forest and Tree Planting Act which was enacted by parliament to protect forests for the benefit of the present and future generals imposes a personal legal duty and penalty for anyone who illegally destroys the country forest resources.
It’s equally important for our national leaders especially the cabinet and parliament to note that as they consider the fate of Mabira forest ,experts assessing the dangers posed to civilisation have added climate change to the prospect of nuclear annihilation ,as the greatest threats to humankind.
according to Ice evidence The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the experts have as a result, moved the minute hand on their famous "Doomsday Clock" two minutes closer to midnight. The concept timepiece, devised by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS), now stands at five minutes to the hour.
The decision to move it came after BAS directors and affiliated scientists held discussions to reassess the idea of doomsday and what posed the most grievous threats to civilisation. Growing global nuclear instability has led humanity to the brink of a "Second Nuclear Age," the group concluded, and the threat posed by climate change is second only to that posed by nuclear weapons.
Its broad assessment is that the warning over the last few decades is attributable to human activities(such as the Uganda government’s deforestation agenda- emphasis mine) and that its consequences are observable in such events as the melting of Arctic ice. In the years ahead, rising sea levels, heat waves, desertification, along with new disease outbreaks and wars over arable land and water, would mean climate change could bring widespread destruction, the BAS board warned.
all this paints a gloomy forecast or a “doomsday” as the BAS board terms it, we have laws in this country and international instruments to which Uganda is signatory -that can be employed to stave off or mitigate the effects of global warming through forest conservation. ",1]
Sharma should know that the Forest and Tree Planting Act which was enacted by parliament to protect forests for the benefit of the present and future generals imposes a personal legal duty and penalty for anyone who illegally destroys the country forest resources.
It’s equally important for our national leaders especially the cabinet and parliament to note that as they consider the fate of Mabira forest ,experts assessing the dangers posed to civilisation have added climate change to the prospect of nuclear annihilation ,as the greatest threats to humankind.
According to Ice evidence The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the experts have as a result, moved the minute hand on their famous "Doomsday Clock" two minutes closer to midnight. The concept timepiece, devised by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS), now stands at five minutes to the hour.
The decision to move it came after BAS directors and affiliated scientists held discussions to reassess the idea of doomsday and what posed the most grievous threats to civilisation. Growing global nuclear instability has led humanity to the brink of a "Second Nuclear Age," the group concluded, and the threat posed by climate change is second only to that posed by nuclear weapons.
Its broad assessment is that the warning over the last few decades is attributable to human activities(such as the Uganda government’s deforestation agenda- emphasis mine) and that its consequences are observable in such events as the melting of Arctic ice. In the years ahead, rising sea levels, heat waves, desertification, along with new disease outbreaks and wars over arable land and water, would mean climate change could bring widespread destruction, the BAS board warned.
Much as all this paints a gloomy forecast or a “doomsday” as the BAS board terms it, we have laws in this country and international instruments to which Uganda is signatory -that can be employed to stave off or mitigate the effects of global warming through forest conservation.
\u003c/p\>\n\n\u003cp\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Times New Roman\"\>The constitution provides for the Public Trust Doctrine in the management of our natural resources. A new amendment to our constitution article 8A (1) has transformed the 1995 guiding principles to provide that " Uganda shall be governed based on principles of national interest and common good enshrined in the national objectives and the principles of state policy.
The government of Uganda led by President Museveni should listen to the voices of the Ugandan people the majority of who are opposed to the destruction of Mabira forest reserve. Good governance calls for a democratic government and society where the leaders listen and adopt the aspirations of the people they lead.
Posterity shall treat our national leaders harshly for the wrong decisions they make about the management of natural resources.Next week in this column: Is the law adequate to fight racism.
The constitution provides for the Public Trust Doctrine in the management of our natural resources. A new amendment to our constitution article 8A (1) has transformed the 1995 guiding principles to provide that " Uganda shall be governed based on principles of national interest and common good enshrined in the national objectives and the principles of state policy.The government of Uganda led by President Museveni should listen to the voices of the Ugandan people the majority of who are opposed to the destruction of Mabira forest reserve. Good governance calls for a democratic government and society where the leaders listen and adopt the aspirations of the people they lead.
Posterity shall treat our national leaders harshly for the wrong decisions they make about the management of natural resources.
Next week in this column: Is the law adequate to fight racism. The writer is a Journalist and Advocate msserwanga@gmail.com 0772 43 46 77
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
find it here as well
same here
Torture is simply inexcusable
May 15, 2007
Recently Daily Monitor run an investigative report about the new methods being employed by security agencies to torture suspects in an effort to extract information or confessions.Doctors and psychotherapists at the African Centre for Treatment and Rehabilitation for Torture Victims (ACTV) at Kamwokya in Kampala have reported a rise in the number of patients who report “invisible torture” inflicted upon them by security operatives. Invisible or systematic torture simply refers to the new methods of torture designed not to leave any marks or scars on the bodies of those who are abused.One of the victims whose human rights have been violated explained the excruciating pain that was visited on him by his tormentors .The victim talked about how his torturers sadistically told him that they were going to install ‘speed governors’ in his legs. They straightened his legs and hit him with a baton on both knee joints and ankles for four painful hours. This victim suffered broken legs and is receiving treatment at the ACTV.Invisible torture is only part of the many forms of cruel and inhuman treatment of suspects or political opponents by dictatorial regimes. The variety and inventiveness of torture includes kicks and punches to the body and head; blows with truncheons or wood bats; placing a pistol on one’s head and issuing death threats; applying electric shocks to the body, rape, destruction of soft tissue with pliers, chili powder put in body orifices, burning with cigarettes, repeated dunking of the head in water.In addition to state sponsored torture, individuals or groups may also inflict torture on others for similar reasons; however, the motive for torture can also be for the sadistic gratification of the torturer.Whatever form it takes, prohibition of torture is absolute. The right to be free from torture is protected under the International Bill of Rights. The Convention Against Torture (CAT) defines torture as any act committed by state agents or persons holding positions of authority; by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for the purposes of obtaining information or confession, punishment, intimidation or for any reason based on any kind of discrimination.The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) further provides that the right to be free from torture cannot be suspended or limited in any circumstance even in war, threat of war, political instability or public emergency – and it cannot be defended on the basis of orders from superiors. Our constitution also protects an individual form torture or any other inhuman or degrading treatment. In fact, information or confessions which are obtained by illegal means cannot be admitted in evidence.Unfortunately, while the Uganda government has acceded to the legal prohibition based on a universal philosophical consensus that torture and ill-treatment are repugnant, abhorrent, and immoral, it is yet to sign and ratify these important international legal instruments. It is not surprising therefore that reports of torture in safe houses have continued to grace the cover pages of our national news papers. It is true that coercion is one of the basic characteristics of the state; especially African states, which are dictatorial in nature. But this coercion should be lawful. You can still use legal means to beat the errant, transgressing members of society in line. You do not have to torture someone to make them respect the law. In most cases torture is encouraged by people in authority and those who carry out the gratuitous acts of torture are usually motivated by the fear of loss of status or respect, and the desire to be seen as a “good citizen” or “good subordinate”.The people who encourage torture or cordon it should know that what goes around comes around. Today it is me, tomorrow it is you. The government must treat the use of torture as a criminal offence, make efforts to prevent torture, explain that it is prohibited in all our armed forces , thoroughly investigate allegations and ensure that the victims and witnesses who complain of torture are protected and get compensation and rehabilitation.Our criminal penal law should be amended to introduce provisions that specifically deal with the offence of torture and impose tough sanctions for the offenders. The section dealing with causing grievous bodily harm is simply inadequate and does not capture all the ingredients of torture which is a more serious offence.
Next week: Charging journalists for sedition is unconstitutional.
The writer is a Journalist and Advocatemsserwanga@gmail.com0772 43 46 77
same here
Torture is simply inexcusable
May 15, 2007
Recently Daily Monitor run an investigative report about the new methods being employed by security agencies to torture suspects in an effort to extract information or confessions.Doctors and psychotherapists at the African Centre for Treatment and Rehabilitation for Torture Victims (ACTV) at Kamwokya in Kampala have reported a rise in the number of patients who report “invisible torture” inflicted upon them by security operatives. Invisible or systematic torture simply refers to the new methods of torture designed not to leave any marks or scars on the bodies of those who are abused.One of the victims whose human rights have been violated explained the excruciating pain that was visited on him by his tormentors .The victim talked about how his torturers sadistically told him that they were going to install ‘speed governors’ in his legs. They straightened his legs and hit him with a baton on both knee joints and ankles for four painful hours. This victim suffered broken legs and is receiving treatment at the ACTV.Invisible torture is only part of the many forms of cruel and inhuman treatment of suspects or political opponents by dictatorial regimes. The variety and inventiveness of torture includes kicks and punches to the body and head; blows with truncheons or wood bats; placing a pistol on one’s head and issuing death threats; applying electric shocks to the body, rape, destruction of soft tissue with pliers, chili powder put in body orifices, burning with cigarettes, repeated dunking of the head in water.In addition to state sponsored torture, individuals or groups may also inflict torture on others for similar reasons; however, the motive for torture can also be for the sadistic gratification of the torturer.Whatever form it takes, prohibition of torture is absolute. The right to be free from torture is protected under the International Bill of Rights. The Convention Against Torture (CAT) defines torture as any act committed by state agents or persons holding positions of authority; by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for the purposes of obtaining information or confession, punishment, intimidation or for any reason based on any kind of discrimination.The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) further provides that the right to be free from torture cannot be suspended or limited in any circumstance even in war, threat of war, political instability or public emergency – and it cannot be defended on the basis of orders from superiors. Our constitution also protects an individual form torture or any other inhuman or degrading treatment. In fact, information or confessions which are obtained by illegal means cannot be admitted in evidence.Unfortunately, while the Uganda government has acceded to the legal prohibition based on a universal philosophical consensus that torture and ill-treatment are repugnant, abhorrent, and immoral, it is yet to sign and ratify these important international legal instruments. It is not surprising therefore that reports of torture in safe houses have continued to grace the cover pages of our national news papers. It is true that coercion is one of the basic characteristics of the state; especially African states, which are dictatorial in nature. But this coercion should be lawful. You can still use legal means to beat the errant, transgressing members of society in line. You do not have to torture someone to make them respect the law. In most cases torture is encouraged by people in authority and those who carry out the gratuitous acts of torture are usually motivated by the fear of loss of status or respect, and the desire to be seen as a “good citizen” or “good subordinate”.The people who encourage torture or cordon it should know that what goes around comes around. Today it is me, tomorrow it is you. The government must treat the use of torture as a criminal offence, make efforts to prevent torture, explain that it is prohibited in all our armed forces , thoroughly investigate allegations and ensure that the victims and witnesses who complain of torture are protected and get compensation and rehabilitation.Our criminal penal law should be amended to introduce provisions that specifically deal with the offence of torture and impose tough sanctions for the offenders. The section dealing with causing grievous bodily harm is simply inadequate and does not capture all the ingredients of torture which is a more serious offence.
Next week: Charging journalists for sedition is unconstitutional.
The writer is a Journalist and Advocatemsserwanga@gmail.com0772 43 46 77
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
