Court quashes limitations on demonstrations, assemblies

 National Unity President Robert Kyagulanyi (centre), also known as Bobi Wine, leads activists during a demonstration against the new social media tax in June 2018 in Kampala. PHOTO | FILE

What you need to know:

  • In their findings, the five justices of the Constitutional Court held that Sections 5 and 10 of the Act , to the extent that they impose penal sanctions on organisers and participants in peaceful public meetings, including demonstrations and assemblies, contravene the Constitution and therefore, are null and void.

The Constitutional Court has  quashed provisions of the Public Order Management Act (POMA), 2013, that ban  unauthorised demonstrations and public meetings. 

The court made the decision when considering a criminal case against the  president of Opposition political party, the National Unity Platform (NUP), Robert Kyagulanyi, aka Bobi Wine, for having participated in demonstrations against high taxes  in 2018. 

Mr Kyagulanyi and other protesters were accused of disobedience of statutory duty, as provided for in the Act. 

In a unanimous judgment delivered on Friday, five justices held that the charge of disobedience of statutory duty against the protestors constituted an “impermissible limitation” on their right to freedom of assembly.

It implies that no person can now  be criminally charged for getting involved in a peaceful demonstration without first seeking permission from the Inspector General of Police as envisaged under sections 5 and 10 of the Act.

“I would declare that the charges against the accused persons (Mr Kyagulanyi and others) that were based on their participation in a peaceful albeit unauthorized public meeting constituted an impermissible limitation on their right to freedom of assembly, and contravene Article 29 (1) (d) of the 1995 Constitution,” ruled Justice Elizabeth Musoke, who wrote the lead judgment.

She added: “I would make an order permanently staying the criminal proceedings against the accused persons vide Buganda Road Chief Magistrate’s court criminal case no. 0676 of 2018 with no orders to costs.”

Other justices were; Fredrick Egonda-Ntende, Christopher Madrama, Monica Mugenyi and Christopher Gashirabake.

Mr Kyagulanyi was charged  alongside his elder brother Fred Nyanzi in 2019. Also charged were their aides; Mr David Lule, Mr Julius Katongole and Mr Edward Sebufu at Buganda Road Chief Magistrates Court.

It was the  prosecution’s case that Mr Kyagulanyi and others still at large on July 11, 2018 at City Square on  Kampala Road, breached  POMA by holding a public meeting without giving notice to any authorised officer.

They were also accused of holding a public meeting without adhering to the required criteria and refusing to coordinate and cooperate with police to ensure that all participants are unarmed and peaceful.

The group was arrested after they held a demonstration in the capital city as they challenged the then imposition of Shs200 excise duty for use of Over the Top (OTT) services (commonly known as social media tax), reasoning that it was unfair since Ugandans were already paying for taxes on airtime.

But on September 28, 2020, then presiding magistrate Doreen Olga Karungi at Buganda Road Court, in accordance with Article 137 (5) of the Constitution, referred the case to the Constitutional Court for interpretation following a question that needed determination.

The question that needed determination was “whether Sections 5 and 10 of the POMA, 2013 are in contravention or inconsistent with Article 29 (1) (a) and (d) of 1995 Constitution”

In their findings, the five justices of the Constitutional Court held that Sections 5 and 10 of the Act , to the extent that they impose penal sanctions on organisers and participants in peaceful public meetings, including demonstrations and assemblies, contravene the Constitution and therefore, are null and void.

“I would therefore, find that the imposition of a penal sanction under Section 5 (8) and Sanctions 10 (3) and (4) of the POMA is disproportionate for purposes of ensuring orderly meetings and constitutes limitations that are not acceptable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society and that contravenes Article 29 (1) (d) of the 1995 Constitution,” Justice Musoke said.

Further, the justices relying on the European case of Akgol and Gol versus Turkey (2006), observed that it is only in the event of actual violence that it would be necessary to impose penal sanctions against the perpetrators of the violence.

Going forward, the justices directed the registrar of the court to notify Buganda Road Court Chief Magistrate about their decision to stop the trial permanently.

State attorneys from the Attorney General’s chambers; Mr Mark Muwonge and Ms Susan Akello had unsuccessfully argued that the  rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly are not absolute in the Constitution. 

Article 29 (d) states that every person shall have the right to freedom to assemble and to demonstrate together with others peacefully and unarmed.

Efforts to reach out to Bobi Wine were fruitless but Mr Joel Ssenyonyi, the spokesperson of the party, last evening, welcomed the ruling of the court.

“For a long POMA has been problematic as it contravenes the Constitution particularly article 29 (d) since you can’t take away the people’s rights to assemble peacefully,”  he said.