Public Interest Litigation and Access to Justice

Abstract

Public Interest Litigation is a vital phenomenon that has significantly grown in the legal arena recently (past 2 decades) than ever before. Deriving from its meaning (as we shall see hereinafter), Public Interest Litigation has taken off at a time when Uganda, just like any other Developing Countries, is grappling with poverty. It is incontestable that the existence of an impoverished population inexorably engenders limitations on the access to justice.

This article demystifies the concept of Public Interest Litigation with specific focus on who has the capacity to institute an action under PIL (Locus Standi), before which forum (Jurisdiction), its significance on the Access of Justice (especially by the poor), limitations thereto, recommendations and key takeaways.

Introduction

As underscored in the foregoing, access to justice by the poor, marginalized and underprivileged (indigent citizens) is “ rain in a desert”; this is due to a myriad of factors such as poverty, ignorance and lack of information about their rights and the law, deeply entrenched cultural beliefs and hindrances, bias and distrust in the legal system¹, conservatism and illiteracy.

It is indisputable that access to justice involves costs ranging from Court fees to legal fees to hire an Advocate. As such, a citizen who is grappling with the basic necessities of life cannot afford to institute a suit, and if instituted, they cannot sustain the same. Such a situation imposes an obligation on the state to devise means of assisting these people; this obligation stems from a variety of rights and freedoms enshrined under Chapter Four of the 1995 Constitution as amended. Article 21 provides for equality and freedom from discrimination on grounds of, inter alia, economic and social status.² Similarly, Article 126 (1) and 2(a) are intended to enhance access to justice by everybody including the poor.

Cognizant of the predicament at hand, Uganda promulgated the 1995 Constitution which laid down the foundation for access to justice by the indigent under Article 50 (2).³ The foregoing provision was reiterated specifically in the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, 2019 which explicitly mentions of the aspect of PIL.⁴

Although the State and other players have made efforts to enable the category of people at hand to access the gates of justice, it is still a challenge given the unrelenting poverty. Various avenues have been established, both government-based and private/ non-government fora. These efforts have manifested through establishing Legal Aid Clinics and Pro Bono services (under institutions and by Advocates personally) and many others of whatever name designated.

Institutions such as Justice, Law and Order Sector (JLOS) under the Judiciary, Legal Aid Service Providers Network (LAPSNET), State Brief System⁵ under the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Uganda Law Society⁶, Law Council⁷, Law Development Centre⁸, Public Interest Law Clinic ( PILAC) , Network of Public Interest Lawyers (NETPIL), etc. have been established for this purpose.

Access to justice encapsulates various aspects such as legal advice, legal awareness, legal representation, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Counselling, among others. These services are part of what the above institutions offer.⁹

Definition and scope of Public Interest Litigation

Black’s Law Dictionary 8th Edition defines Public Interest Litigation as “the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection”. A matter under Public Interest Litigation must require a legal remedy and be a public interest, which means it must;

1. affect a significant number of people not just the individual or;
2. raise matters of broad public concern or;
3. impact on disadvantaged or marginalised groups, and;
4. it must be a legal matter which requires addressing pro bono publico (for the common good).¹⁰

In Water & Environment Media Network (U) Ltd & 2 Ors v National EnvironmentManagement Authority & Another ((Consolidated Misc. Cause No. 239 & 255 of 2020)), Ssekaana J held:

Public interest litigation should not be used for personal or political gains or for mere publicity or for other oblique reasons. Such public interest matters should be done by persons having expert knowledge in the field after making proper research especially if it is concerned with issues of constitutional law. It is true that public interest litigation has been abused and is increasingly used by advocates for publicity and or seeking prominence in the legal profession and it is now ‘Publicity Litigation’. It is supposed to be a special type of litigation which is essentially meant to protect basic human rights of the weak and disadvantaged who on account of poverty, helplessness, or social and economic disabilities could not approach the court for relief or for upholding the rule of law and constitutionalism or where a matter of grave public concern is involved.

The courts should be circumspect in recognising public interest standing and the judicial officer must determine whether the applicant is a genuine public interest litigant and is not acting malafide for personal gain, private profit or for political or other oblique considerations.

In R v Bedfordshire, Campbell C.J defined Public Interest Litigation as follows:

Public or General Interest […]does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or love of information or amusement; but that in which a class of community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their rights or liabilities are affected.¹¹
This affirms Justice Ssekaana’s holding in the foregoingcaseasto whether the litigant has genuine interest.

In Mwanga Kivumbi V Attorney General Constitutional Appeal No.06 of 2011, Lilian Tibatemwa J defined Public Interest Litigation as litigation for the protection of public interest and that it is not required that it is the person whose rights have been violated that must bring the suit for the Court to exercise jurisdiction over it. She further noted that the salient ingredient of public interest litigation is that the suit is brought for and in the interest of the public to vindicate an interest of public nature. She also noted that in a public interest matter, the litigant does not struggle for him or herself as it is the case in private litigation where a litigant/ aggrieved party struggles for his or her own benefit.

In S.P. Gupta V Union of India Air (1982) Supreme Court 149 it was held that where a person or determinate class of persons, by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or economically disadvantaged position, is unable to approach court, any member of
the public can maintain an application for appropriate direction, order or writ seeking judicial redress for the legal injury or wrong to such a person or determinate class of persons and that this constitutes public interest litigation.

It follows therefore, that such a matter is deemed to fall within public interest litigation if the remedies sought are not for the litigant himself, but for the benefit of the disadvantaged persons. In The Women’s Probono Initiative & Another V Attorney General & Another Misc. Cause No. 190 of 2020, the 1st Applicant had brought the matter for the benefit of the 2nd Applicant, but failed to demonstrate that their case was not only to seek justice for the latter but also for the public or to prevent the risk/injury posed to the public. Esta Nambayo J held:

I have already established that in this case, the remedies sought are not public interest remedies as they only seek to address concerns of the 2nd Applicant. I therefore, find that this Application does not fulfil the requirements of Public Interest Litigation under Art. 50 (2) of the 1995 constitution of Uganda.

From the foregoing discussion, a few things can so far be noted to wit: – publicinterest litigation is centrally intended to bridge the gap between the well off andthemarginalized in the access to justice hence equality and alleviating discrimination, toredress public injury and obtain public remedy, and it is in the interest not of thelitigant (individual), but for a group of persons affected.

Notwithstanding, the pertinent question is what amounts to “Public”? must it be determinate or indeterminate group of persons? Can one institute an action on behalf of one marginalized individual, and the same matter be held to be of public interest nature? Or does the number matter? Aren’t there instances where a person, in pursuance of enforcement of another person’s rights, has the aspect of public interest as their crux of the case? Or can a matter for enforcement initiated by private litigation (where the aggrieved party brings the suit in his or her own interest), yet with an element of public interest, fall under public interest litigation in part?

For the last two questions, recourse can be had to the Supreme Court decision in Mwanga Kivumbi supra where Justice Tibatemwa held that it is possible for a suit brought under private litigation to bear an element of public interest. She relied on the case of Kizza Besigye V Museven Yoweri Kaguta & Electoral Commission¹² where it was held that the matter was unprecedented, historical and of national importance that it was considered to be exonerating issues of public nature. It therefore follows that what matters is who benefits from such litigation, that is, the nature of the remedy being sought.

Must it be determinate or indeterminate group of persons? Owing to the various definitions of Public Interest Litigation underscored in the foregoing, it is immaterial as to whether or not the affected persons are determinate/ known to the litigant. They can either be identifiable as a group or unidentifiable where the matter is likely to affect a section of the public or the public at large.¹³

Reference should be made to S.P. Gupta V Union of India Air (supra). In Kizza Besigye V Museven Yoweri Kaguta & Electoral Commission (supra), Court found the matter to be of public interest because it concerned matters of public concern and of national importance despite having been instituted in private capacity.

Can one institute an action on behalf of one marginalized individual, andthesamematter be held to be of public interest nature? Before we proceed any further, let usrevisit the genesis of this concept which is Article 50 (2), and I wish to reproduce it here:

Any person or organisation may bring an action against the violation of another person’s or group’s human rights.” This provision does explicitly mention the expression “public interest”, but different court decisions have interpret edit as to mean public interest litigation.

According to S.P. Gupta V Union of India Air (supra), a matter which is brought for the benefit of a member of the marginalized group of the society is one that falls in the ambit of public interest litigation. It was held that where a person or determinate class of persons, by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or economically disadvantaged position, is unable to approach court, any member of the public can maintain an application for appropriate direction, order or writ seeking judicial redress for the legal injury or wrong to such a person or determinate class of persons. It, therefore, follows that as long as the spirit behind the litigant is rooted in the desire to obtain justice for the indigent not for selfish reasons, then the number whether determinate or indeterminate is immaterial.

Locus Standi

To say that one has locus standi to institute and maintain action, it means that one has “capacity” to institute proceedings. It signifies the right to appear in Court, and to say that a person has no locus standi, he or she has no right to appear and be heard in the specified proceedings, hence his case is not worth listening to.¹⁴ Locus standi is the status which the law requires of a person to enable him to invoke the jurisdiction of Court in order to be granted the desired remedy.¹⁵

It means a legal standing- and “standing” in this sense means the relationship between the plaintiff and the cause of action to enable him move court, and it is based on the principle that court’s time should not be wasted on hypothetical and abstract questions or at the insistence of mere busybodies that have no genuine grievance.¹⁶

Accordingly, once one can demonstrate that they have a direct interest in the matter, they are eligible to seek redress if their interest is (is at risk of) being adverselyaffected;such a person is regarded as having a locus standi.¹⁷)

In Dima Dominic Poro v Inyan Godfrey & Anor Civil Appeal No. 0017of 2016 Mubiru J held:

[…] save in public interest litigation or except where the law expressly states otherwise, such as article 50 (2) of The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995which confers on any person or organization the right to bring an action against the violation of another person’s or group’s human rights, for any person to otherwise have locus standi, such person must have “sufficient interest” in respect of the subject matter of a suit, which is constituted by having; an adequate interest, not merely a technical one in the subject matter of the suit; the interest must not be too far removed (or remote); the interest must be actual, not abstract or academic; and the interest must be current, not hypothetical.

Article 50(2) makes us “our brother’s keeper.¹⁸ By using the expression “any person” instead of say “an aggrieved person”, it allows any individual or organization to protect the rights of another even though that individual is not suffering the injury complained of. It effectively abolishes locus standi as we know it in the Common Law tradition.¹⁹

Another avenue to public interest litigation lies in Article 137(3), which allows any person who alleges a violation of the Constitution to have taken place to petition the Constitutional Court.¹⁹ In Ismail Serugo -V- KCC& Attorney General [Constitutional
Appeal No. 2 of 1998], Mulenga JSC held that the right to present a constitutional petition was not vested only in the person who suffered the injury but also in any other person.

There are other laws which confer upon any individual who claims that a right has been violated to institute a case despite the absence of injury sustained by the same such as the National Environment Act.²⁰
It provides:

(2) Every person has a duty to create, maintain and enhance the environment, including the duty to prevent pollution.

(3) A person may, where the right referred to in subsection (1) is threatened as a result of an act or omission by any person which has or is likely to cause harm to human health or the environment or in enforcement of the duty referred to in subsection(2)file a civil suit against the person whose act or omission has or is likely to cause harm to human health or the environment.

(4) A person proceeding under subsection (3) may file a civil suit notwithstanding that the person cannot prove that the act or omission of another person has caused or is likely to cause personal harm or injury.

This is public interest litigation resonates and is in line with Article 3(4) of the Constitution which confers and imposes a right and duty, respectively, on every citizen of Uganda to defend the Constitution. Therefore, circumstances under Article3, 137 and others laws such as those above help to vindicate the constitutional duty and foster public interest.

It follows that one must not necessarily have been affected to have locus standi under public interest litigation neither does it mean that having been affected prevents a matter to fall under the same.

As we have seen in the preceding discussion, a matter can have both private and public interests. What is important is to draw clear line during in drafting the pleadings; an application cannot purely seek personal remedies (remedies for the benefit of the litigant) and be said to be public interest nature.²¹

The prayers sought indicate whether the litigant is struggling for himself or for the public. In The Women’s Probono Initiative & Another V Attorney General & Another (supra) Esta Nambayo J held:

I have already established that in this case, the remedies sought are not public interest remedies as they only seek to address concerns of the 2nd Applicant. I therefore, find that this Application does not fulfil the requirements of Public Interest Litigation under Art. 50 (2) of the 1995 constitution of Uganda.

The import of the above holding is that one can bring an action both in private and public interests as was affirmed in Mwanga Kivumbi Supra. The outcome of [public interest litigation] is deemed important in that it is likely to impact not only the individual litigant filing suit, but also a larger cross-section of society. PIL therefore has wide ramifications for the public at large, even if initiated by a single individual.²²

At this point, I hope we now have a clear appreciation of what “locus standi” means and secondly who has the same to institute a matter under Public Interest Litigation. Let us now proceed to another crucial aspect pertaining to the enforcement of human rights, specifically under PIL.

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction means the power or authority of a court of law to hear and determine a cause or matter. It is the power to entertain, deal with or decide a suit or action, petition or other proceeding.²³

We have so far looked at the meaning of public interest litigation, who can initiate it and where matters of enforcement are redressable, however, there is a controversy on where, specifically, public interest matters can be lodged and determined. The above begs the question as to which court has the power to hear and determine a matter of human rights enforcement (in this case) under public interest litigation.

To answer the foregoing question, recourse must be had to the enabling laws andinthis case, we shall focus on the Constitution, The Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, 2019, The Judicature (Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms)(Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2019 and case law.

I have to reiterate it that this phenomenon (PIL) stems from Art. 50 (2) of the1995Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. It is to the effect that any person or organization may bring an action for violation of another person’s or group’s human rights. Clause 4 of the article in issue provides that parliament shall make laws for the enforcement of human rights enshrined under Chapter Four. Accordingly, a statute, that is, the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act was promulgated in 2019 to that effect; the long title of the same provides:

An Act to give effect to article 50 (4) of the Constitution by providing for the procedure of enforcing human rights under Chapter Four of the Constitution; and for related matters.

It is important to note that Article 50 (1) bestows upon any person who claims that their fundamental right or freedom has been infringed or is threatened to apply to a competent court for redress. Parliament executed its mandate under clause 4as seen above. Needless to say, the expression “providing for the procedure of enforcing human rights under Chapter Four of the Constitution” encapsulates public interest litigation as provided under Art. 50 (2).

Accordingly, Section 1 (2) of the Act in question provides:
This Act shall apply to the enforcement of human rights by a competent court. Consequently, S.2 defines a “Competent Court” as the Magistrate’s Court and High Court.

Sections 4 and 5 of the Act prescribe the jurisdiction as regards human rights enforcement. The former provides:

The High Court shall hear and determine any application relating to the enforce mentor violation of—
(a) non-derogable rights and freedoms guaranteed in article 44 of the Constitution;

(b) other rights, duties, declarations and guarantees relating to fundamental and other human rights and freedoms envisaged in article 45 of the Constitution;

(c) rights and freedoms restricted under a law made for purposes of a state of emergency; and

(d) rights and freedoms which are preserved by this Act, to be determined by a magistrate court, where the remedy sought by the applicant is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of that court.

According to Section 7 of the Act, the High Court may exercise jurisdiction where, while presiding over proceedings, a claim of human rights violation arises. The subordinate court is mandated to refer the matter, in respect of such a claim, to the High Court for determination.

The latter provision (S.5) provides:

A magistrate court shall hear and determine applications relating to the enforce mentor violation of human rights and freedoms guaranteed in Chapter Four of the Constitution in any of the circumstances not referred to in subsection (1) of section4.

From the foregoing, the only competent courts envisaged under Article 50 and Section 3 of the Human rights (Enforcement) Act respectively are only the Magistrate Courts and High Court.

However, there have been (and still are) discrepancies concerning the jurisdiction for the determination of human rights violation disputes under public interest litigation. This confusion culminates from the recently issued out rules underscored in the foregoing, that is, the Judicature (Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2019;

Rule 7 (2) confers the Constitutional Court exclusive jurisdiction to determine matters for enforcement of human rights under Public Interest Litigation. This not only contradicts with Article 50 as well as the Act, but also Article 137 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. The latter provision prescribes the jurisdiction of the Court as being one to handle matters of constitutional interpretation.

Consequently, a number of decisions have been made dismissing matters of public interest before the High Court for not being properly before the same. This implies that the High Court has no jurisdiction to determine the same. A case in point is the case of Mangafu Joseph & 12 Ors V Agilis Ranch 20 & 21 And 3 Ors where Court held that if the matter is of public interest nature, then it must be lodged in the Constitutional Court.²⁴ Other cases include; Muhindo Morgan Vs UCC & Anor ((H. C. Misc. Cause No.130/2021)) and Unwanted Witness (U) Ltd V Attorney General & 4 Ors.²⁵

Owing to the above analysis, it begs the question as to what exactly is the Court vested with jurisdiction to handle public interest matters. We all have an insight on how to address this question, but in my opinion, the Constitution and the Act prevail
over the attendant Rules. As a corollary, the Constitutional Court has no jurisdiction to handle human rights enforcement actions, but rather the Magistrate and High Courts. In fact, in Attorney General v Major General David Tinyefuza ((Constitutional Appeal No. 01 of 1997)), Wambuzi CJheld that the Jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court is limited to interpretation of the Constitution. He stated “put it in a different way, no other jurisdiction, apart from interpretation of the constitution, is given”. This is predicated on Article 2 of the Constitution which provides that where any law […] is inconsistent with the constitution, such law is null and void to the extent of its inconsistency. Accordingly,
in as far as jurisdiction is concerned (not entirely) the Rules are void, that is, Rule7(2). However, the Constitutional Court has not yet pronounced itself on this position. This rule is unequivocally inconsistent with the Constitution and by virtue of Article2 of the same, is bound to suffer one fate, that is, a declaration that it is null and void. It is vexing the minds of legal practitioners out there and it is anticipated that very soon it will be litigated upon as to its constitutionality since it has served as astifling tool and barrier to social justice, particularly public interest litigation as evinced in the foregoing cases.

Impact of Public Interest Litigation on Access to Justice in Uganda

It is trite that a considerable number of Uganda’s population live belowthe povertyline. To simply put, they are engulfed in the chasm of poverty, and are inexorablyincapable of either instituting or (if instituted) sustaining a law suit. Needless tosay, Courts are not accessed at a free cost, in other words, to institute an action, oneneedsfunds to meet the costs of hiring a lawyer, court fees, transport among others.

Such class of persons live in an appalling state of affairs whereby they onlyliveforsurvival – every little income they earn (if at all they do) is expendedonanddevoured by the basic necessities of life such as food. They hardly get surplus tocaterfor things like education and litigation in this case.

Owing to the foregoing fact, it does not mean that they are insulated against the manipulation and being taken advantage of by those who thrive on the negative side of capitalism – through unscrupulous acts and exploitation. The human rights of the said marginalized people are trampled upon due to their vulnerability. As such, their property are grabbed, they are rendered homeless, others are raped and killed- precisely, they suffer every sort of injustice you can think of.

Some victims either fear to express their clamour or are threatened not to report such incidents. Even for those who can/ are willing, they do not have the requisite resources to pursue and vindicate their infringed upon rights before Courts of law.

As we have observed and learnt in the preceding discussion, Chapter Four of the1995Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended embodies a “bill of rights” to which all citizens are entitled by virtue of being human beings.²⁶ The same Chapter Four sets out the mechanisms for enforcement of the same; one can apply to a Competent Court for redress in their own capacity and interest²⁷), another can seek to enforce the rights of another person or a person can enforce a groups’ human rights if
violated. The last two mechanisms fall under public interest litigation.²⁸

The provision for public interest litigation has become a vital tool in salvaging those in a marginalized predicament, whose social – economic status inhibits them from accessing the gates of justice. Despite the ostensible and existential impediment as highlighted in the foregoing under the 2019 Rules, we have noted that suits have been/ can be sustained under public interest litigation. This has helped to enhance, foster and reinforce constitutionalism and rule of law in Uganda. The impoverished and marginalized can have an opportunity to taste the fruits of constitutional guarantees in spite of their financial incapacity to facilitate their own suits.

Public interest litigation doesn’t / has not only promote/promoted constitutionalismand rule of law, but also increased the rate of access to justice by the indigent citizens. Fortunately, there are no costs awarded under public interest litigation. This hasserved as the fulcrum for public interest litigation as it eliminates the fear for costsbeing slapped against the compassionate public interest litigant not strugglingforthemselves.

The Constitution guarantees equality and freedom from discrimination for all citizens irrespective of their status. Similarly, the same mandates the Judiciary to administer justice without regard to the social – economic status of citizens. As such, any condition clogging the enforcement of human rights under public interest litigation(the known plausible hope for the poor) inexorably stifles their access to justice.

Limitations

Some limitations have already been alluded in the foregoing discussion, however, forspecificity and emphasis, let me produce them explicitly;

Firstly, public interest litigation relies, predominantly, on the benevolence of those in position to sustain suits. Notwithstanding, this discretionary factor makes it uncertain as to whether or not one will access justice. At the very best, not everybody can be assisted as it would be if all or most of the people had capacity to institute their own suits and sustain them.

Secondly, it is apparent that, pursuant to the Rules in question, it has become difficult to institute and action under public interest litigation. As we have noted in the foregoing, several cases have been dismissed for being filed in the wrong court.²⁹) One would argue that why then, don’t they file in the right Court prescribed under the Rules. The question as to whether the Constitutional Court is the right forum is apparently controversial because the same Court has not yet come out to pronounce itself on the validity of Rule 7 in issue despite the Constitution and the Act being unequivocal on the matter at hand. The Constitution mentions of a Competent Court to handle human rights disputes³⁰) and empowered the legislature to make laws regarding the procedure for enforcement of human rights under Chapter Four thereof.³¹ Accordingly, the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, 2019 prescribed the right fora to that effect as already underscored in the foregoing.³²

No one has the right to alter law except if amended by the makers of the same or declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court. This has vexed the minds of human rights activists who have the passion for constitutionalism and rule of law. It is anticipated that in the near future, this rule will be litigated upon.

Accordingly, no one would risk outright dismissal of their suit yet the laws overriding the Rule in question are clear. Until such a pronouncement has been made by the Constitutional Court, lawyers will continue to be reluctant to pursue this course of
litigation.

Thirdly, some victims, given their predicament, do not clamour for nor report injustices meted upon them; this could be as a result of their threats/ fear, remoteness, ignorance of their rights and the possible fora to seek assistance or redress from. As such, public interest activists end up devoid of knowledge of such gross violations which hinders access to justice by the underprivileged. It is noteworthy that Advocates are proscribed from touting, that is, soliciting for work/ business or clients.³³) This makes it partly impossible to wander looking for those affected. Such injustices are brought to their attention predominantly by the media, and this has limited access to justice by the poor/ marginalized despite such an opportunity.

Let me now turn to another aspect which is “recommendations”.

Recommendations

As we have seen in the introduction, efforts have been made to extend access to justice to the indigent through various programmes and initiatives³⁴; with this, coupled with public interest litigation, the helpless can benefit from and realize their constitutionally protected rights. However, the limitations highlighted hereinabove inhibit such realization. It is on this account that we not only need to cast light on the challenges but also suggest the possible measures that can be undertaken to redress or at least alleviate the same. Accordingly, my recommendations are as follows;

1. The State has a huge burden or role to play first, that is, developing the political will to promote, protect and enforce human rights to fulfil its mandate.³⁵) this obviously has to do with fighting impunity – it is trite that there have been claims that some government officials violate human rights and they go not held accountable for their actions despite the efforts by the victims to vindicate their rights. We have seen land grabbing, torture, rape and other gross human rights violations by security officers, where attempts to bring them to the eyes of justice have either failed due to threats or because they use their positions to influence the police and other relevant officers such as State Attorneys to cover up their illegal actions.
   
   In the above situation, the Executive has a great role to play in enforcement of human rights and fighting impunity and promoting democracy where no one is above the law. If this arm of government is positive towards human rights and holding/ letting the such officers who violate the laws be held accountable, then we are assured that justice will prevail.
2. Secondly, whereas we appreciate and laud the State for its initiatives such as JLOS and other avenues such as the ULS and LDC which have been instrumental in fostering justice for the indigent, more efforts are needed to empower them more either financially or otherwise.
3. As noted in the foregoing, journalists/ media are fundamental in the realization of justice; they act as watch dogs and help to report human rights violations. They should accordingly be empowered than being hindered. This means there is need to enhance their rights and security to be able to execute their duties. They play a pivotal role in promoting democracy and rule of law by bringing to light acts such as those of human rights violations. Public interest litigation attracts a lot of attention and for this reason is often wrongly called “publicity interest litigation”. Nonetheless the media are an important and indispensable ally in any battle for societal rights.³⁶

Takeaways & Conclusion

At this point, we should be able to evaluate or assess ourselves as to whether wecomprehended the foregoing discussion. It is better to reiterate what this articleisabout; precisely, we have been looking at two phenomena, that is, Public InterestLitigation and Access to Justice.

I chose these two because they are linked and complement each other (if not intertwined). Public Interest Litigation fosters access to justice whereas those (as we have seen above) who promote access to justice³⁷ do it in the same spirit (common good), and in so doing, public interest litigation is part of what they do. While one may enforce a group’s right under PIL without necessarily falling under any legal aid clinic or sort of compulsory pro bono like it is at under the Advocates Act, the end result is enhancement of access to justice by a common class.

In general, we have seen how public interest litigation enhances access to justice; the indigent get the opportunity to redeem their rights and dignity. We have also looked at the concept of public interest litigation, its genesis, purpose, benefits, limitations and recommendations to redress the shortcomings. On the last two, these are not exhaustive, many more may exist, but the above are some of them for purposes of this discussion.

In particular, we have learnt the following;

1. The law permits any person or organization to bring an action in the interest, notof their own, but of the public.
2. The locus standi requisite in such matters is different fromordinary suits, that is, one need not to have direct interest or any interest at all to have a legal standing.
3. The appropriate fora for enforcement of rights are the Magistrate Courts and the High Court; the Constitutional Court has no jurisdiction to handle human rights enforcement matters. The Constitution and the Statute from which the Rules derive their force override latter despite the absence of the pronouncement of Constitutional Court to that effect.
4. The various avenues that provides legal aid services to the poor and public interest litigation services.

In a nutshell, public interest litigation is one of the pertinent areas in Uganda which people should interest themselves in if we are to develop our human rights justice system to the desirable standards. This will enable us to hold the officials in authority accountable for the actions, and assist the majority victims who are poor to access justice and be remedied.

References

Domestic Laws

1. The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended
2. The Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, 2019
3. The Poor Persons Defence Act Cap 20
4. The Advocates Act (as amended)
5. The Advocates (Legal Aid to Indigent Persons) Regulations, S.I No. 12 of 20076.
6. The Advocates (Pro-Bono Services to Indigent Persons) Regulations, S.I No. 39of
   2009
7. The Law Development Centre Act
8. The Advocates (Student Practice) Regulations, S.I 70 of 2004
9. The National Environment Act No. 5 of 2019

Cases

1. Attorney General V Major General David Tinyefuza Constitutional Appeal No. 01of 1997
2. Consolidated Misc. Cause No. 239 & 255 of 2020
3. Dima Dominic Poro v Inyan Godfrey & Anor Civil Appeal No. 0017 of 20164.
4. Ismail Serugo -V- KCC& Attorney General [Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998]
5. Katende Appolonaris & Others v Mrs Elionora Wismer CACA No. 34 of 20106.
6. Kimpi Isabirye v Attorney General & Anor Misc. Cause No. 23 of 2017. 7.
7. Kizza Besigye V Museven Yoweri Kaguta & Electoral Commission Presidential
   Petition No.1 of 2001
8. Mangafu Joseph & 12 Ors V Agilis Ranch 20 & 21 And 3 Ors Misc. Cause No. 011Of 2020
9. Muhindo Morgan Vs UCC & Anor H. C. Misc. Cause No.130/2021
10. Mwanga Kivumbi V Attorney General Constitutional Appeal No.06 of 2011
11. P. Gupta V Union of India Air (1982) Supreme Court 149
12. R v Bedfordshire 24 L.J.G.B 84
13. The Women’s Probono Initiative & Another V Attorney General &AnotherMisc.Cause No. 190 of 2020
14. Unwanted Witness (U) Ltd V Attorney General & 4 Ors Misc. Cause No. 50Of
    2021
15. Water & Environment Media Network (U) Ltd & 2 Ors v National Environment
    Management Authority & Another Consolidated Misc. Cause No. 239 &255of 2020

Textbooks

1. Ssekaana Musa; Civil Procedure and Practice in Uganda; 2nd Edition
2. Watkins, L.L.P., 2016. A Survey of Pro Bono Practices and Opportunities in84Jurisdictions.
3. Dennison, D.B. and Tibihikirra-Kalyegira, P., 2014. Legal Ethics and Professionalism. Globethics. net.

Journal Articles

1. Kakooza, A.C.K., PRO BONO PUBLICO AND ITS ADMINISTRATIONINUGANDA.
2. Kyomuhendo, A., 2019. Public Interest Litigation in Uganda: History, Practices and Impediments. Practices and Impediments (October 6, 2019).
3. Karugaba, P. and HOTEL, I.B.B., 2005, September. PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONIN UGANDA PRACTICE & PROCEDURE SHIPWRECKS AND SEAMARKS. In Judicial Symposium on Environmental Law.
4. Oloka-Onyango, J., 2015. Human Rights and Public Interest Litigation in East Africa: A Bird’s Eye View. Geo. Wash. Int’l L. Rev., 47, p.763.

Websites

1. Uganda Law Society – Justice Centres Uganda
2. About LAP – Uganda Law Society (uls.or.ug)
3. PRO BONO PUBLICO AND ITS ADMINISTRATION IN UGANDA| AnthonyConrad K. Kakooza – Academia.edu
4. Human Rights and Public Interest Litigation in East Africa: A Bird’s Eye ViewbyJ. Oloka-Onyango :: SSRN

---

Image Credit: Ssekaana

---

About Author

1. Dennison, D.B. and Tibihikirra-Kalyegira, P., 2014. Legal Ethics and Professionalism. Globethics. net. [↩]
2. All persons are equal before and under the law in all spheres of political, economic, social and cultural life and in every other respect and shall enjoy equal protection of the law. [↩]
3. The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended [↩]
4. Section 3 (2) (c) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, 2019 [↩]
5. Article 28(3) (e) of the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended, See also Poor Persons Defence Act Cap 20 [↩]
6. Legal Aid Project (LAP) under the Uganda Law Society [↩]
7. Section 3 (e) and 15 A of The Advocates Act (as amended), See also: The Advocates (Legal Aid to Indigent Persons) Regulations, S.I No. 12 of 2007 and Advocates (Pro-Bono Services to Indigent Persons) Regulations, S.I No. 39 of 2009 [↩]
8. Section 3 (1) (l) of the Law Development Centre Act & Reg. 7 of The Advocates (Student Practice) Regulations, S.I 70 of 2004, [↩]
9. Kakooza, A.C.K., PRO BONO PUBLICO AND ITS ADMINISTRATION IN UGANDA at Page 13 [↩]
10. Kimpi Isabirye v Attorney General & Anor Misc. Cause No. 23 of 2017 [↩]
11. Campbell C.J in R v Bedfordshire 24 L.J.G.B 84 [↩]
12. Presidential Petition No.1 of 2001 [↩]
13. It is supposed to be a special type of litigation […] where a matter of grave public concernis involved. (Ssekaana in Water & Environment Media Network (U) Ltd & 2 Ors v National Environment Management Authority & Anor) supra [↩]
14. Stephen Mubiru J in Dima Dominic Poro v Inyan Godfrey & Anor Civil Appeal No. 0017 of 2016 [↩]
15. Ssekaana Musa; Civil Procedure and Practice in Uganda; 2 nd Edition at Page 66 [↩]
16. Ssekaana Musa (Supra) and Mubiru J (supra) at Pg. 7 [↩]
17. Katende Appolonaris & Others v Mrs Elionora Wismer CACA No. 34 of 2010 cited by Ssekaana (supra [↩]
18. Karugaba, P. and HOTEL, I.B.B., 2005, September. PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONINUGANDAPRACTICE & PROCEDURE SHIPWRECKS AND SEAMARKS. In Judicial Symposium on Environmental Law. [↩]
19. Ibid. [↩] [↩]
20. Section. 3 (4) of The National Environment Act, 2019 [↩]
21. The Women’s Probono Initiative & Another V Attorney General & Another Misc. Cause No. 190 of 2020, [↩]
22. Oloka-Onyango, J., 2015. Human Rights and Public Interest Litigation in East Africa: A Bird’s Eye
    View. Geo. Wash. Int’l L. Rev., 47, p.763. [↩]
23. Ssekaana Musa; Civil Procedure and Practice in Uganda; 2
    nd Edition at Page 13 [↩]
24. Misc. Cause No. 011 Of 2020 At Pg. 7 [↩]
25. Misc. Cause No. 50 Of 2021 At Pg. 10 [↩]
26. Art. 20 – human rights are inherent and not granted by the State. [↩]
27. Art. 51 (1) of the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda (as amended [↩]
28. Art. 50 (2) supra [↩]
29. Joseph Mangafu, Muhindo Morgan, Unwanted Witness cases (supra [↩]
30. Art. 50 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda (as amended [↩]
31. Art. 50 (4) supra [↩]
32. Sections 2, 4 and 5 of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, 2019 [↩]
33. Section 74 (1) (e) and 75 of The Advocates Act (as amended [↩]
34. JLOS, pro bono services under ULS, LDC, legal aid clinics (supra)etc. [↩]
35. Art. 20 (1) of the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda (as amended [↩]
36. Karugaba, P. and HOTEL, I.B.B., 2005, September. PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONINUGANDAPRACTICE & PROCEDURE SHIPWRECKS AND SEAMARKS. In Judicial Symposium on Environmental Law [↩]
37. Such as legal aid clinics and pro bono services [↩]