Blog

At the height of the implementation of the COVID-19 related measures, a serious debate arose concerning the choice of legal regime in which they were adopted on the one part, and the implications their implementation posed for key Constitutional tenets namely rule of law, Constitutionalism and observance of human rights. One of the major observations made by the critics of the approach taken by the government was a feeling that the eminent threat posed by COVID-19 and the appropriate measures that needed to be taken warranted declaration of a state of emergency.

In light of the Constitutional and legal significance of that debate, and the apparent need for an authoritative platform for relevant stakeholders to engage on the issue, Mr. Oundo organised two consecutive webinars on Monday April 6 and Monday April 14, 2020. The first webinar was titled “Covid-19 and the Law: Testing the Constitution in the Face of a Pandemic” while the second one grappled with the question ‘Should Uganda Declare a State of Emergency in response to COVID-19?’

At the height of the implementation of the COVID-19 related measures, a serious debate arose concerning the choice of legal regime in which they were adopted on the one part, and the implications their implementation posed for key Constitutional tenets namely rule of law, Constitutionalism and observance of human rights. One of the major observations made by the critics of the approach taken by the government was a feeling that the eminent threat posed by COVID-19 and the appropriate measures that needed to be taken warranted declaration of a state of emergency.

In light of the Constitutional and legal significance of that debate, and the apparent need for an authoritative platform for relevant stakeholders to engage on the issue, Mr. Oundo organised two consecutive webinars on Monday April 6 and Monday April 14, 2020. The first webinar was titled “Covid-19 and the Law: Testing the Constitution in the Face of a Pandemic” while the second one grappled with the question ‘Should Uganda Declare a State of Emergency in response to COVID-19?’

Discussion 1: Covid-19 and the Law: Testing the Constitution in the Face of a Pandemic”, Monday April 6, 2020

• Introduction
  The webinar on ‘Covid-19 and the Law: Testing the Constitution in the Face of a Pandemic’ broadly discussed the problematique of the COVID-19 preventive and containment measures in view of the Constitutional tenets of rule of law and human rights. This webinar hosted lawyers from different facets of legal practice that is; Ms. Lillian Byarugaba Adriko (Executive Director, FIDA Uganda); Mr. Nicholas Opio (Executive Director, Chapter Four Uganda), Mr. Elison Karuhanga (Partner, Kampala Associated Advocates), Ms. Dorothy Amuron (Health Rights Advocate, Centre for Health Human Rights and Development), as well as Mr. Isaac Atukunda (Advocate and Partner at Credo Advocates in Kampala).

• Highlights
  Generally, it was acknowledged that all the different measures adopted in response to COVID-19 were in good faith; for the purpose of arresting the ominously rising spread of a deadly virus that was already forcing the hitherto mighty nations to their knees. At the same time, there were concerns that the manner and mode of implementation of some of the measures were counter to human rights and rule of law. For example, it was observed that the guidelines were gender blind to the women let alone the most poor and vulnerable members of society. In this regard, the measures attacked included: the requirement of market vendors who are mostly women-mothers and ‘wives’ to stay in markets on a 24 hourly basis in order to stem potentially harmful contact with their families; a ban on public transport including boda bodas which provide assurance to most of the rural poor to access essential maternal and other family healthcare services; a ban on street vendors’ business and closure of some perceivably non-essential businesses; a 7:00pm to 6))am curfew among others. Consequently, women’s access to health care, dignity, livelihood etcetera was hugely compromised due to among others limited access to relevant health services; dignity and protection from inhuman and degrading treatment with many women brutalized by the law enforcers en route their subsistence journeys and others exposed to sexual abuse due to insecure confinements and involuntary and uncertain unemployment as well as domestic violence.
  A call was thus made for the law enforcers to conduct themselves in a manner that is within the contours prescribed by the Constitutional and legal regime whose command was is still in force, there having not been declared a state of emergency. In order to guarantee that this happens, it was suggested that the country’s leadership should facilitate the institutions such as local authorities as well as those that provide checks and balances to the Executive, to work. The judiciary, lawyers as well as civil society organisations especially those offering human rights and justice related services were profiled as examples in that regard. This was preferred over what was increasingly being perceived as a personalized one-man show highlighting on the President of the republic of Uganda, which was believed to generate negative publicity for a rather justifiable cause and response.
  Also at the core of the day’s discussions was a mixture of opinions regarding the suggestion for declaration of a state of emergency in light of concerns regarding the constitutionality and effectiveness of the legal regime under which the measures were being enforced. On the one hand was a feeling that the Public Health Act and the guidelines issued thereunder are specifically concerned with health and therefore ignore related necessary interventions. That therefore, if a state of emergency was declared, there would be a more general approach encompassing among others: guarantees of accountability in the implementation of the measures through checks by Parliament and the UHRC, certainty around the timelines for continuation of the measures, giving the President more powers to mandate the private sector to complement any possible shortfalls in the state’s responses by for example producing food and other essential supplies for the public etc.
  Conversely, there was opposition to declaration of a state of emergency on among other grounds: that the situation in Uganda is not yet out of hand; the institutions mandated to ensure accountability such as the UHRC had not been stopped from working as alleged. More fundamentally, it was observed that the measures in force were issued under a constitutionally backed law, the Public Health Act, which was described as a robust legislation which gives wide powers given to the Minister to regulate/control disease. In any case, it was noted, proceeding this way offered a readily available avenue for quick decisions and response to a potentially catastrophic outbreak of COVID-19.
  This is notwithstanding that the opponents to a state of emergency were unanimous in asserting that when the situation worsens with more infections and fatalities and warranting for example an extension of the term of office of the President and Parliament because elections cannot be held, then more extreme measures can be adopted. The apparent consensus was that a state of emergency should only be resorted to, not by choice, but as a matter of necessity and a last resort.