Case Summary and Outcome

The High Court of Uganda held that the actions of Uganda Peoples Defence Forces officers violated the constitutional rights of journalists Timothy Murungi and Henry Sekanjako, including their rights to freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, as well as their right to freedom of the press. The Applicants, while covering a news event involving former presidential candidate Kyagulanyi Sentamu at the UN Human Rights Office on February 17, 2021, were assaulted by military police officers, causing severe physical and psychological harm. The Court found that the assault and intimidation by security personnel obstructed the Applicants’ ability to perform their professional duties, thereby infringing upon their constitutionally protected freedoms. It held the Respondents personally liable for the violations, awarding each applicant UGX 75,000,000 in general damages (approximately 20,240 USD). The Court also ruled that the Respondents were vicariously liable for the actions of their agents, and the Applicants were entitled to compensation, while rejecting additional claims for verification, apologies, and guarantees of non-repetition.

Facts

The Applicants, including Timothy Murungi and Henry Sekanjako, are both journalists working for New Vision. Murungi worked as an Assistant Visual Editor and a Manager at the Photo Desk at the New Vision. As part of his duties, Murungi was required to go to the field to cover stories and to contribute at least 10 photographs per day. Sekanjako is a Senior Journalist at the New Vision and was deployed to cover ex-presidential candidate, Kyagulanyi Sentamu at the the United Nations Human Rights Office. Both, Murungi and Sekanjako, were members of the Uganda Journalist Association. 

On February 17, 2021, the Applicants were covering a news event involving former presidential candidate Kyagulanyi Sentamu Robert’s petition to the United Nations Human Rights Office regarding the abduction of his supporters. Upon reaching the UN offices, police officers blocked the Applicants and other journalists from accessing the premises. While Murungi and Sekanjako waited outside the blockade and took photographs, a military police patrol vehicle carrying Uganda Peoples Defence Forces (UPDF) officials, led by Lt. Col. Namanya Napoleone, arrived. Lt. Col. Napoleone allegedly ordered the officers to attack the journalists. The officers, armed with batons and other objects, chased and assaulted the journalists. Murungi was struck in the head with a baton, causing severe bleeding and injuries that left him dizzy and disoriented. He collapsed after running a short distance, suffering from constant headaches, body pain, nightmares, and insomnia even after receiving medical attention. Sekanjako was similarly beaten with batons, sustaining injuries to his right hand and back. Tear gas was also deployed during the attack, heightening the chaos and brutality. Both Applicants described the assault as an unprovoked and deliberate attempt to intimidate journalists and prevent them from performing their professional duties.

Both the Applicants filed an application alleging violations of their constitutional rights under Article 50 of the Constitution of Uganda and various provisions of the Human Rights Enforcement Act, 2019, Sections 3, 4, 6 & 9 of the Human Rights Enforcement Act, 2019, Rules 7 & 8 of the Judicature (Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2019 and Section 98 of the CPA.

Decision Overview

Justice Boniface Wamala delivered the decision. The primary issue before the Court was whether the Applicants’ constitutional rights including freedom of speech and expression were violated and if they were entitled to remedies for the same.

Murungi and Sekanjako contended that the Respondents violated their fundamental rights, including freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, freedom of the press, and the right to practice their profession. The Applicants held that Article 24 of the Constitution prohibits such treatment and that Article 44 renders this right non-derogable. Referring to affidavits, the Applicants detailed how UPDF officers brutally assaulted and injured them during their journalistic duties, constituting inhuman and degrading treatment under Section 2(1) of the Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act, 2012. They contended that these acts violated their constitutional rights, enshrined in Chapter 4 of the Constitution and protected under international human rights law. The Applicants also asserted that the Respondents violated their right to freedom of speech and expression, including freedom of the press, as guaranteed under Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Applicants referenced affidavits in which Murungi explained his professional obligation to cover stories and contribute at least 10 photographs daily, while the 3rd applicant was required to submit two stories for the newspaper and two online articles daily. They contended that the Respondents’ actions obstructed these journalistic responsibilities, thereby infringing upon their constitutionally protected freedom. [paras. 24 & 30]

On the other hand, the Respondent contended that the Applicants were not subjected to torture by UPDF officials as alleged. They contended that the annexures to the Applicants’ affidavits were merely expert opinions in the field of medicine and constituted hearsay evidence since the experts had not sworn affidavits to substantiate their claims. The Respondents maintained that such unverified opinions could not form the basis of the court’s findings. Additionally, they asserted that the Applicants failed to provide evidence demonstrating any systematic conduct targeting journalists in the country.

The Court held that the actions of the UPDF officers constituted a violation of the Applicants’ right to freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, guaranteed under Article 24 and Article 44(a) of the Constitution of Uganda. The Court noted that the evidence presented by Murungi and Sekanjako, including photographs showing their injuries and medical documents detailing the treatment received, was credible and uncontested by the Respondents. The security officers, acting under the command of the 3rd Respondent, intentionally inflicted physical harm on the Applicants to intimidate them and deter media coverage of Mr. Robert Kyagulanyi’s petition to the UN Human Rights Office. The Court held that such actions fell within the definition of torture under Section 2(1), (2), and (3) of the Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act and referred to the principles in Wakiso District Administration v. Gasper Otto and Others, (2015) regarding state accountability for acts of its agents. [paras. 26-29]

Regarding the Applicants’ right to freedom of speech, expression, and the press under Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution, the Court found that the assault and injuries sustained by the Applicants directly interfered with their professional duties as journalists. The evidence demonstrated that the actions of the security personnel not only impeded the Applicants’ ability to report on the event but also constituted an attack on the freedom of the press and media. The Court referred to Charles Onyango Obbo and Andrew Mujuni Mwenda v. Attorney General, (1997), and emphasized the centrality of press freedom in democratic governance. The Court concluded that the Respondents violated the Applicants’ right to practice their profession and their constitutional freedom of the press, answering Issue 1 in the affirmative. [paras. 30-31] The Court noted: 

“Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution of Uganda provides that every person shall have a right to freedom of speech and expression which shall include freedom of the press and other media. The 2nd and 3rd applicants led evidence showing that they were assaulted and sustained bodily injuries while they were covering news stories and taking photographs in the course of their business as journalists”

The Court held that the Respondents were liable for the violations committed against the Murungi and Sekanjako. It found that the army officers who assaulted the Applicants, specifically the 4th to 10th Respondents, acted under the direct command of the 3rd Respondent, as evidenced by the Applicants’ unchallenged identification of the perpetrators. Under Section 10(1) of the Human Rights Enforcement Act, public officers who individually or in association with others violate a person’s rights are personally liable, irrespective of the state’s vicarious liability for their actions. Therefore, the Court held that the 3rd to 10th Respondents were personally liable for their unlawful conduct. [para. 32] Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed the principle of vicarious liability, emphasizing that the government is liable for the actions of its agents, even if those actions are negligent, wanton, criminal, or unlawful, as established in Muwonge v Attorney General, (1967), AG v Hajji Adam Farajara, (1977)  and Kaggwa Vincent v Attorney General, (2014). [para. 33] Accordingly, the 1st Respondent (Attorney General) was found vicariously liable for the acts of the security officers. However, the Court dismissed the claim against the 2nd Respondent (Chief of Defence Forces), noting that no clear linkage was established between the office holder and the impugned actions, and the office itself is not a legal personality capable of being sued. [para. 34]

The Court held that Murungi and Sekanjako were entitled to remedies for the violations they suffered. It issued two declarations: first, that their rights to dignity and freedom from torture, inhuman, and degrading treatment under Articles 24 and 44(a) of the Constitution of Uganda were violated by the Respondents, except the 2nd Respondent; and second, that their rights to freedom of the press and the media under Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution were similarly violated. [para. 35] Regarding compensation, the Court emphasized that general damages are intended to restore an aggrieved person to the position they would have been in had the violation not occurred. The Court referred to Hadley v Baxendale (1894), Charles Acire v M. Engola, (1993), and Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim, (1992), and held stated that damages must reflect the natural or probable consequences of the breach. It awarded UGX 75,000,000/= as general damages to each of the Murungi and Sekanjako, taking into account the psychological and physical harm caused by the Respondents’ actions. [paras. 36-38]

The Court also addressed the Applicants’ additional claims for verification of facts, public apology, acknowledgement of responsibility, and guarantees of non-repetition. It found no merit in pursuing verification or mandating apologies, noting that these remedies would not achieve meaningful progress, especially given the Respondents’ denial of liability. The Court reasoned that an apology or acknowledgement cannot be coerced but may arise in amicable settlements. Consequently, it concluded that the monetary damages awarded were sufficient to meet the ends of justice. [para. 39] In line with Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, the Applicants were awarded the costs of the application. The Court’s final orders included declarations of rights violations, damages, and costs, dismissing claims against the 2nd Respondent without costs. [paras. 40-41]