In a landmark ruling, the High Court of Uganda has ordered the government to pay substantial damages to two journalists who were assaulted by security forces while performing their duties. The judgment, delivered on November 13, 2024, is regarded as a significant victory for press freedom in the country.

The case revolved around claims of rights violations, including torture, inhumane treatment, and infringements on press freedom, all allegedly perpetrated by officers of the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF). The Court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, declaring that their fundamental rights had been violated and awarded them compensation for the injuries they sustained.

Case background

The plaintiffs that included the Uganda Journalists Association (UJA), Timothy Murungi, and Henry Sekanjako, filed their application against the Attorney General, the Chief of Defence Forces, and several military personnel. Murungi and Sekanjako, both journalists at New Vision, claimed that on February 17, 2021, while covering a story about former presidential candidate Robert Kyagulanyi Sentamu, known as Bobi Wine, at the United Nations Human Rights Office in Kampala, they were assaulted.

The applicants argued that these actions violated their fundamental rights, including freedom of the press, dignity, and the right to life. They contended that the assault was deliberate and intended to suppress their journalistic work.

The case was presided over by Hon. Justice Boniface Wamala, who reviewed the claims and evaluated the evidence presented by both parties. The plaintiffs were represented by Kaganzi & Co. Advocates and Ochieng Associated Advocates & Solicitors, while the defense was represented by State Attorney Mr. Uwizera Franklin. The case progressed through written submissions and legal arguments from both sides.

Details of the alleged violations

Murungi, who was the Assistant Visual Editor at New Vision, had been assigned to cover a story related to Kyagulanyi at the UN Human Rights Office. While photographing the events at a police roadblock, Murungi and other journalists were attacked by UPDF officers. Lt. Col. Namanya Napoleone, who was in charge of the operation, allegedly directed the assault. Murungi described being chased by the soldiers, struck on the head with a baton, and left bleeding from the injuries. He required urgent medical treatment and continued to experience lingering effects, including headaches, nightmares, body pain, and insomnia.

Murungi argued that the assault was not only a personal violation but a broader attack on the freedom of the press, aimed at intimidating journalists and curbing their ability to perform their duties without fear of reprisal. He emphasised that such acts of violence undermine the essential role of journalists in holding power to account and contribute to a chilling effect on press freedom.

Similarly, Sekanjako, a senior journalist with New Vision and a member of the Uganda Journalists Association, recounted a separate incident involving military police. Sekanjako had been covering the same event involving Kyagulanyi, and while waiting outside the UN Human Rights Office, he and other journalists were reportedly blocked from entering by military police. Sekanjako stated that the military police, under the command of one of the respondents, launched an unprovoked attack on the journalists. Officers allegedly used tear gas, batons, and other objects, injuring Sekanjako on his right hand and back. Like Murungi, Sekanjako required hospital treatment for his injuries.

Sekanjako argued that the attack not only violated his rights but also obstructed his professional duty as a journalist. He highlighted the broader implications of such actions, stressing that the violence against journalists, if left unaddressed, could further encourage security forces to act with impunity and undermine media freedom in Uganda.

Respondents’ arguments

During the hearing, the respondents, including the Attorney General and various military personnel, raised several preliminary legal points. One of their main arguments was that the application should have been filed in the Constitutional Court instead of the High Court, as it concerned a public interest case. They asserted that actions for the enforcement of human rights could only be initiated in the Constitutional Court.

Furthermore, the respondents argued that the Uganda Journalists Association (UJA), as an organisation, lacked the standing to bring the case on behalf of its members since it is not a natural person. They contended that the UJA had not provided appropriate authorisation or a formal resolution from its directors granting permission to pursue the case, which they believed rendered the suit improperly instituted.

However, the Court dismissed these preliminary objections. It ruled that the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act of 2019 permits organisations or associations to file actions on behalf of individuals or groups whose rights have been infringed, regardless of whether the organisation is a natural person. The Court also determined that the UJA had the legal standing to file the case and that any procedural shortcomings, such as the lack of a formal resolution, were merely technical issues that did not invalidate the application.

Court ruling on rights violations and compensation

After reviewing the evidence presented by both parties, which included photographs of the applicants’ injuries and medical reports, the Court ruled in favour of the applicants. It concluded that the actions of the UPDF officers, under the command of the respondents, constituted violations of the applicants’ rights to dignity, freedom from torture, and freedom of the press.

The Court determined that the physical assaults on the journalists constituted torture, in violation of both the Ugandan Constitution and the Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act. Additionally, the Court found that the respondents’ actions, particularly the violence against journalists, infringed upon their fundamental rights to practice their profession and contribute to public discourse. The Court held that the applicants’ rights to freedom of speech and expression, as protected under the Constitution, were also violated.

In terms of liability, the Court found the Attorney General vicariously responsible for the actions of the military personnel, noting that the security officers were acting within the scope of their official duties when the violations occurred. The individual military personnel directly involved in the assaults were also held liable under the Human Rights Enforcement Act, which holds public officers personally accountable for rights violations. However, the Chief of Defence Forces was not held liable due to insufficient evidence linking him directly to the incidents.

While the applicants had requested several remedies, including a public apology and rehabilitation, the Court decided to award compensation in the form of general damages. The Court acknowledged that the applicants had suffered both physical and psychological harm and emphasised the need for a remedy that would restore the applicants to their prior position. Consequently, the Court awarded UGX 75,000,000 in general damages to both Murungi and Sekanjako for the harm they endured.

The Court also granted the applicants the costs of the application but declined to order the respondents to issue a public apology or verify facts. It reasoned that enforcing such actions would be difficult, given the respondents’ denial of the allegations.

ACME comments: Implications for press freedom

This judgment has significant implications for press freedom in Uganda. It reaffirms the importance of protecting journalists’ rights and holding those responsible for rights violations accountable. The case serves as a reminder of the ongoing challenges faced by journalists in the country and the need for stronger measures to safeguard their rights, ensuring a free and independent press.

By holding the respondents accountable for violating the fundamental rights of the applicants, the Court has emphasised the necessity of protecting press freedom and allowing journalists to work without fear of harassment or violence. The compensation awarded to Murungi and Sekanjako highlights the serious consequences of infringing on journalists’ rights and underscores the urgent need for more robust protections for the media in Uganda.

Additionally, this case points to the need for greater accountability among security forces and government officials regarding their duty to respect the rights of individuals, including journalists, to perform their work freely and safely. With the ruling delivered on November 13, 2024, this case sets another important precedent for future legal matters involving press freedom and human rights in Uganda.

***

Feature photo by KATRIN BOLOVTSOVA.