The Chairperson Board of Directors African Centre for

Media Excellence,
The Executive Director African Centre for Media
Excellence,
The Chief Judge Uganda National Journalism Award,
Distinguished Participants,
Invited Guests,
Ladies and Gentlemen.

It is indeed an honour and privilege for me this evening to

officiate at this Second Edition of the Uganda National Journalism
Awards. They are aimed at improving the quality of journalism in
Uganda by inspiring and recognizing excellence in reporting on
public affairs.
Journalists and the media as a whole, in any democratic society,
play a critical role in holding, receiving and imparting all forms of
opinions, ideas and information. Therefore, the importance of
recognizing and inspiring those gallant men and women who
devote their time, energy and effort to excel in this profession
cannot be overemphasized.
It is because of this critical role played by the media that any
democratic society must uphold freedom of speech and
expression. Indeed, a democracy cannot exist without freedom to
express new ideas and to put forward opinions about the
functioning of public institutions. The concept of free and
uninhibited speech permeates all truly democratic societies and
institutions.
Uganda, like any other democratic society, is committed to
uphold, protect and promote the right to freedom of speech and

expression. It is for that reason that the right is entrenched in the

most binding instrument on the land, the constitution. The
constitution guarantees to every Ugandan the right of freedom to
hold opinions, receive and impart ideas and inform without
interference.
This commitment is not only found in the constitution but also in
other legislation like, The Press and Journalism Act, The Access to
Information Act, and The Uganda Communications Act. In
addition, Uganda is signatory to international conventions such
as, the Universal Declaration for Human Rights, the International
Convention on Civil and Political Rights, The International
Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the
African Charter on Human and Peoples rights, which guarantee
freedom of speech and expression.
The Uganda constitution provides in Article 29(1)(a) that;
Every person shall have the right to freedom of speech
and expression which include freedom of the press and
other media.
Article 41 (1) states that;
Every citizen has a right of access to information in the
possession of the State or any other organ or agency of
the State except where the release of the information is
likely to prejudice the security or sovereignty of the State
or interfere with the right to privacy of any other person.
Article 20(1) of the some constitution acknowledges that;
Fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual are
inherent and not granted by the State.
In addition, Article 20(2) enjoins all organs and agencies of
Government and all persons to respect, uphold and promote the

rights and freedoms of the individuals and groups enshrined in

the constitution.
It is however worth noting that the right to freedom of speech and
expression is not absolute. They may be restricted. However, any
such restriction or limitation must be within strictly and narrowly
defined parameters.
Article 43 of the constitution provides general limitations on
fundamental and other human rights and freedoms which include
freedom of speech and expression. It states that;
(1) In the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms
prescribed in this Chapter, no person shall prejudice the
fundamental or other human rights and freedoms of
others or the public interest.
(2) Public interest under
(a) political persecution
(b) detention without trial;
(c) any limitation of the enjoyment of the rights and
freedoms prescribed by this Chapter beyond what is
acceptable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and
democratic society, or what is provided in this
Constitution. (Emphasis is added).
The co-existence in the same constitution, of protection and
limitation of the rights, necessarily generates two competing
interests. On the one hand, there is the interest to uphold and
protect the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. On the other
hand, there is the interest to keep the enjoyment of the individual
rights in check, on social considerations, which are also set out in
the Constitution. Where there is conflict between the two
interests, the courts have and will continue to come up to resolve
it having regard to the different objectives of the Constitution.

You will recall that in 2004, the Supreme Court, in the case of
Charles Onyango Obbo and Anor versus the Attorney
General (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2002), declared
section 50 of the Penal Code Act which criminalized publication of
a false statement, rumour or report which is likely to cause fear
and alarm to the public or to disturb the public peace as being
inconsistent with article 29(1)(a) of the constitution.
In the lead judgment of Justice Joseph Mulenga, with which all the
other justices of the Supreme Court concurred, he went at great
length to explain the above constitutional provision in 5 critical
area, that is, freedom of expression in a democracy, falsity and
freedom of expression, limitation on freedom of expression, the
standard of limitation and prejudice to the public interest. On
freedom of expression in a democracy, he stated;
the right to freedom of expression is of great
significance to democracy. It is the bedrock of democratic
governance. Meaningful participation of the governed in
their governance, which is the hallmark of democracy, is
only assured through optimal exercise of the freedom of
expression. This is as true in the new democracies as it is
in the old ones.
On falsity and freedom of expression, he had this to say;
Subject to the limitation under Article 43, a persons
expression or statement is not precluded from the
constitutional protection simply because it is thought by
another or others to be false, erroneous, controversial or
unpleasant. Everyone is free to express his or her views.
Indeed, the protection is most relevant and required when
a persons views are opposed or objected to by society or
any part thereof, as false or wrong.

On limitation on freedom of speech and the standard of the

limitation stipulated in article 43 of the constitution he stated
that;
In other words, by virtue of the provision in clause (1),
the constitutional protection of ones enjoyment of rights
and freedoms does not extend to two scenarios, namely:
(a) where the exercise of ones right or freedom
prejudices the human right of another person; and (b)
where such exercise prejudice the public interest. It
follows therefore, that subject to clause (2), any law that
derogates from any human right in order to prevent
prejudice to the rights or freedoms of others or the public
interest, is not inconsistent with the Constitution.
However, the limitation provided for in clause (1) is
qualified by clause (2), which in effect introduces a
limitation upon the limitation.
It is apparent from the wording of clause (2) that the
framers of the Constitution were concerned about a
probable danger of misuse or abuse of the provision in
clause (1) under the guise of defence of public interest.
For avoidance of that danger, they enacted clause (2),
which expressly prohibit the use of political persecution
and detention without trial, as means of preventing, or
measures to remove, prejudice to the public interest. In
addition, they provided in that clause a yardstick, by
which to gauge any limitation imposed on the rights in
defence of public interest. The yardstick is that the
limitation must be acceptable and demonstrably justifiable
in a free and democratic society. This is what I have
referred to as a limitation upon the limitation.
The limitation on the enjoyment of a protected right in
defence of public interest is in turn limited to the measure
of that yardstick. In other words, such limitation, however

otherwise rationalised, is not valid unless its restriction on

a protected right is acceptable and demonstrably
justifiable in a free and democratic society.
As regards prejudice to public interest he held that the prejudice
must be real and not speculative or conjectural mischief. He
stated;
Clause (1) of Article 43 allows for derogation of rights, or
limitation of their enjoyment, in respect of two
exceptional circumstances or scenarios, namely, where the
enjoyment, of ones right prejudices either the personal
rights of others or the public interest.
Those are grave circumstances presenting actual mischief
or danger to the rights of others or to the public
interest. In those exceptional circumstances, the
Constitution allows for derogation or limitation in order to
avert or remove real mischief or danger. The clause does
not expressly or implicitly extend to a third scenario,
where the enjoyment of ones right is likely to cause
prejudice.
I do not understand the clause to permit derogation of
guaranteed rights or limitation of their enjoyment, in
order to avert speculative or conjectural mischief or
danger to public interest.
He held that Section 50, however, relates precisely to that third
scenario and was therefore inconsistent with Article 29(1) of the
constitution.

In 2007, the constitutional court also nullified Section 32 of the

police Act that gave police powers to control public assemblies
and demonstrations. In the lead judgment of justice Byamugisha,
JA, she stated that;

A society especially a democratic one should be able to

tolerate a good deal of annoyance or disorder so as to
encourage the greatest possible freedom of expression,
particularly political expression.
In 2010, the same court annulled section 39,40,41,42 43 and 197
of the Penal Code Act that created the offence of sedition.
The court relied on the case of Charles Onyango Obbo, supra, and
held that those sections of the penal code Act were in conflict with
Article 29 of the constitution. In their words they said;
Our people express their thoughts differently depending
on the environment of their birth, upbringing and
education. While a child brought up in an elite and God
fearing society may know how to address an elder or
leader politely, his counterpart brought up in a slum
environment may make annoying and impolite comments,
honestly believing that, that is how to express
him/herself. All these different categories of people in our
society enjoy equal rights under the Constitution and the
law. And they have equal political power of one vote each.
That explains counsel Kakurus observation that during
elections voters make very annoying and character
assassinating remarks and yet in most cases false, and yet
no prosecutions are preferred against them.
The reason is because they have a right to criticize their
leaders rightly or wrongly. That is why he suggested,
rightly so that leaders should grow hard skins to bear. We
find that, the way impugned sections were worded have
an endless catchment area, to the extent that it infringes
ones right enshrined in Article 29(1) (a). We answer issue
one in affirmative and in favour of the petitioners.
Therefore, all these court pronouncements go to show that the
courts have come out clearly to defend freedom of speech and

expression. With the press becoming more and more vibrant,

more of such cases are likely to come to the courts for
interpretation.

As the head of the judiciary, I wish to reassure the public and

especially members of press and other media that the judiciary is
committed, and will continue to guard jealously, the right to
freedom of speech and expression in addition to other rights
enshrined in our constitution.

This of course: is not to say the press/media if free to write

whatever they please. There are for instance some serious
concerns in regard to the manner in which the media has and
continue to conduct itself.

What is the duty of the press to society? There IS need to protect

other individuals who may be injured by the media.

Sometimes, ones freedom of expression and press clashes with

other individuals rights.

This gives rise to actions for defamation, libel or slander. Here the
court must play a balancing act-the need to promote freedom of
expression, while at the same time protecting the right of others
this is what the constitution demands, i.e. that the enjoyment of
ones rights must not prejudice the rights of others.

Vices such as sensationalism, distortion and inaccuracies, being

insensitive to peoples lives, lack of fairness (not giving all sides
opportunity to be heard), partisanship, extortion and blackmail,
accepting money to publish or kill stories, lack of sufficient rigor
and analytical depth, insufficient investigation and research,
inadequate knowledge of the subject being covered, invasion of
privacy and attention to profit at the expense of public interest
have been singled out.

As we approach election period and given the charged nature of

our competitive electoral politics, there will inevitably arise
questions of accuracy in reporting, access by politicians from all
sides to both private and public media, hate speech, etc. No
matter the side you are on, you must not lose sight of your proper
journalistic standards. Responsible reporting will promote healthy
debate of national issues. Petty and narrow reporting, in my view,
distorts the debate.

We know Radio Mille Colline did in Rwanda and we should learn

from that tragedy.

Why would a responsible media house refuse a politician of a

different view point from airing his/her views on that radio, TV or
Press? True professionals should encourage not stifle debate.

All these call for high level professionalism and impeccable moral
conduct. The Media Council and Uganda Communication
Commission should encourage self regulation.

Awards like these are important element of self regulation. I am

told the entries in the competition are judged against the
following criteria; reporting accuracy and comprehensiveness;
writing style, language and storytelling technique; originality and
enterprise in reporting; reporting rigor, depth and breadth of
discussion and engagement; skill in use of journalism tools for
original reporting; insight, analysis and examination of the
context of story, relevance and public impact or benefit. These
are the kind of things for which every journalist should want their
work to be judged.

I congratulate all the winners of the Uganda National Journalism

Awards.

Thank you.
Bart Katureebe