Article 41(1) of the 1995 constitution provides that every citizen has a right
to access information in the possession 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. Therefore government has a duty
to prohibit hateful, insightful speech and thus should regulate on the
freedom of expression in the manner that protects one’s reputation.
The electronic media Act provides for the establishment of a broad casting
media council to license and regulate radio and television station from
publication of false news and other activities that may not be suitable for the
public for example pornography and among others . Section 7 (2) (b) of the
same Act prohibits any broadcasting which infringes upon privacy of an
individual or which contains false information. This was reaffirmed in the
celebrated case of Buwembo V Attorney General where the constitutional
court of Uganda held that section 179 of the penal code Act criminalizing
libel was not contrary to the right to freedom of expression guaranteed under
article 29 and 43 of the constitutional . In this case it involved force Ugandan
journalists with daily monitor news paper brought against them for the
unlawful publication of defamatory material in the article concerning faith
Mwondha the inspector general of government. Court reasoned that the
protection of one’s reputation was a matter of public interest because an
individual is a member of the public and renders service to the public.
Further stated that the protection of one’s reputation justified restrictions on
the freedom of expression that criminal sanctions we’re justified because
who deliberately publish lies intending to damage a person’s reputation or
commit egregious act , comparable to act of assault , fraud and should be
punished.
The Anti terrorism Act Section 9 (1) criminalizes the publication and
dissemination of news materials that promote terrorism. News materials that
promote terrorism are not precisely defined as the person convicted of the
offense is liable to suffer death with the option of imprisonment. Section 3
(1) © of the third schedule of the act violates journalistic ethics by clearly
excluding journalistic material which a person holds other than documen or a
religion
The first schedule of the Press and Journalist Act prescribes a professional
code of ethics with nine precepts. Some of these are: 'No journalist shall
disseminate information or allegations without establishing its correctness or
truth'; 'A journalist shall not originate or encourage the dissemination of
information designed to promote or which may have the effect of promoting
tribalism, racism or any other form of discrimination'; 'No journalist shall
disclose the source of his information and shall only divulge them in the
event of an overriding consideration of public interest and within the
framework of the law of Uganda' and 'A journalist shall obtain his information
through the skillful application of journalistic principles and shall never bribe
or offer inducements to his source'.
So, while journalists have a legally defensible ethical basis for protecting the
confidentiality of their sources, the 'overriding consideration of public
interest' is one caveat that has allowed the government to coerce journalists
and media houses to reveal their sources of information about particularly
unflattering stories. The Daily Monitor newspaper and its sister radio station,
KFM, have at various times been forced to shut down their operations for up
to a week when police and security officials invaded them purportedly in
search of their sources for stories and programs that the government found
to be politically offensive and hence the need to regulate these bodies
There fore the explicit guarantee for freedom of expression in the
constitution, coupled with favorable court rulings, have given journalists and
media activists solid grounds to challenge laws that were inherently
designed to stifle the media in their role of holding the government
accountable. These include laws against publishing false news and on
sedition. The courts have sent out a clear signal that the continued existence
of such laws on the statute books is in fact unconstitutional.This was
highlighted in the case of Charles Onyango Obbo & Andrew. Mwenda V
Attorney general where justice mulenga argued that it is evident that the
right to freedom of expression extends to holding, receiving and imparting
all forms of opinions, ideas and information. It is not confined to categories,
such as correct opinions, sound ideas or truthful information. Subject to the
limitation under Article 43, a person's 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 where a person's views are opposed or objected to by
society or any part thereof, as 'false' or 'wrong'. He further asserts that the
real test of freedom of expression is the extent to which society is willing to
entertain the most unpalatable opinions. At least for the future, the Ugandan
courts have helped to limit the degree of arbitrariness in the government's
handling of critical speech.
