The RepubUc of Uganda

In The High Court Of !Ugandia, At Kampala M iscell aneous Ca use No .1.63 of .2010

1. Kasha JacqueUne '}

2 f", ','~~II'd;', I!I-~"",', 1(1'15-1 ~!II~I~G, -. ,," ••••• ' •• '" •• ' •••• ' •• ' ••• ' •••• ' •• ' ••• ' •• '. ' •• ' •• " ••• '" • ". ' ••• A"pn1ic'a' nts

.... , ~J UU'Y ._:_' Ii\.(Jlltuf\.11 - ,!bIIIt.i.lI~'-r. ~ • !Ii • ~ 1111111111 • iIj 1111111111 .J 1111 iIj II II iii. iIj II II II 1111 ~ !I ,Ii iii [Ii a, Ii ~J Iii iii .J II! !'!!!!' " '" ~,~~,_., I~

3., Onziema Patience

Versl!ls,

1. Roll~1ng Stone Ltcq~

2. Gi!lles Muhame f ~:':::::::::: ::: :::::::: ::::::::::::::: ::: :'::::: :::: RespondeWlts

Befor-e~ Hon. Nr~ Justioe V.F.,MlIlsoke~Kibl!lulka

IIlUJLING

I:NTR:OIDUCTlON

This motion WaS presented under ,Ar~ilde 5()( 1) and (l), of the: Constitution

01 nd rlUll~e 7, of the Judicature (Fundamental Rights And IFreiedoms)

rul es :2 and 9, of th e Civi I~ Pro ced ure lR!lI'les.

The applicants seek the ~onowillrllg reliefs:

a) a perma nent ] njilJlnai on restrai nl ng the respond ents from

P ubi i sh ing ~nj u rlou 5 i I1I~orm!ation a:g'8 i nst the resp.ondlel1t;

b) an order awarding, compensation (general damages) to the

a IPPUca nts;a nd

c) an erder aW8lidiliilgithe costs of this appllcationtc the appUcants"

rhe~ fi rst respondent, Kash a J acq ueil~ ne 1 swo re the affid@ivit i n 5~!p p art of the motion IMr. GlUes Muhame, the second respondent and Mana~ling Drurector of the'nrs[ r'espondent deponed the affidalvitin rep,ly.

At 'the hear~ng oftthe motion, the alppncants were represented by learned counsel, Dr. Hlenry Onorrna and Mr" John Ifrands o nY®Ingo.. Mrr. Akalnkwasa Edw,Oltrd~l!ppearedfor the respondents ..

'FACTS,:

The respondents are pub~ishers of a newspaper called 'DRoUinl! Slo'ne_.,B The Newspaper labels mtse~lfl "UgalildJlf'S IleBdiingl i[lIvestiigat'ilve' Pol'iti,C,_aJI. Newspaper. ".

It Is not in dispute that. on 2nd October, 20101 the respondent's pubncat~on carried a .story ir~1 the part: of the newspaper that was labeled as ",SC:ANIDAl11 The heading to the Sf[ory was wriHen in the followingl fashion:

'\\HIAIN'G THIEM;: 'TN EY ARE A'FTER OUR. K1DS!~!.!!! Plctures, 0,' US3nda('s 100 IHomol$ leak."

Some extracts of the story read:

lilJI 1.2 m'onths cia.ntlesfine in'Viestil1atilJlJ into the dark wDrld of .hoffl,c]-Sexualitr and lef!l.,ianism in tile cDun.try has led tD the full .,ex/losure ,of't-he fa.cial appearances of lela.dinq (JilrS in ,this

2

. nation. The miRhty .Relling St-one is glad to reveAl some' ,af tb,f!!J

m,osL horrible S8ae,ts .in. community, which' is bent 01'1

rBcruiting .IJI.least one million .members bv 2012 ..

brain washed towards b_is:(~"ual orie'IJtatj,(},,~

(Jur investigators h.'t:J'I((;!J' sec,-ured 100' pictures ,an'll mOlie are

'" -', ~,.,., ~ , ~.;<4-, ... f"~ ,b. -""'~~'_:nnQ"""-ninQ o· f"·~ Hl~,.a·Q~·d-t ':lla~e renu'eFl!!u Cu.ll~· lUI' .U.f' ....... ~ . .f""'c._~/'c;.; ... c_ '.. ~U~"" 1, ... ",_ ._u/,.,'5 ..

the .ramR.agetbat t-hreat-ens the 'alureo,' ,our ge'ller:s'tiao bv

hDmosexua~/s, the 'vice will continue ea.ting up' tll,e .m,ors/' .fabric

and ,cultu~e of Q,urgreat natiolJ~ uunless a ·s,tronq a'(zion' is

011 ~he first applicant, the paper wrote: inter alia,

f~'a,t the end of eVery~mDn.t"l gays ,usuallr gather the hom,es of

gar: organization/eaders eS/Z8cJallt! ,at Kasha .Jilt:queline'~s

mansion in Makjndye. .Kasba i'S said to be N'aonR,u:zin.dana·~

qi"'lfrlend~ At Kashai~ place" wine is pODped an.dsam.etiW,e5 3

gars elllJ/me' in orgies~ .ltasha usuallr hangs tJut_aLEfftm.dr:s

Regarding the third o,ppiicant, the paper I inter a~lia, started;

and ,tertiarY institutions' ba'r_e beJ!o Qel1e'trated .br ·oar activists

tD .,.,-ecr,uiLkids~ One stos" Sheil/a, a resiiJen',t of Kisaas; ia

,l{aml1illa and Pa.tienc'e' ,Onzima, ,are sa.i'iI to be behind this sinful

Learned counsel for the ,appMcants, Dr. Onorla, relying upon averments in the

affidavits in the .affidavit of the first appllcent mode extensive submwssions.

'entrench ed m n Arti d e 24~ of the Co nsti]wtlo n .

Dr .. Onorla submitted further that the can for homcsexuals or persons.

perceived to be homosexuals to be hanged, coupled wi[h the threat to

vidence and mob justice amounted to a threat of dearth wwthout due process

Arti d~e 22, of the Constitl!lt'ion. Dr. .0 nona submitted that the olpp~l~ca nts fe,lt 4

public.

right to ~I~berty as wen as: the right to movement under .Article's 23 andl 2.9(2),

under Article 27, ofthe O:mstitutiiorll.

Counsel concluded by submitting tholt there was uncontroverted evldence, by

On the other hand, learned cOlJlnselMlr. Akankwasa, replrese~f1ItiF1lg the

respondents, apposed the motion. He submitled that the applicants were

not ,ent]tled~ot'he rei mefs so u g htthro ug h the :l1o:~iion because:

relyiingl upon Annexture:s B1 ,and B2 to the .2llffidav:it in reply by Mr ..

,.

Gilles Muhame, ~he appll~cants themselves had ,liIlready exposed

themselves on the internet as homosexeals, Their rmglht to p:r~vacy - s

l

- based upon the vo~untaty appearance 'in pubUc by the applicant as

homosexual activists, their rights could not be said to be iinflriing:ed

by the publlcatlon bytlhe respondents.

pubHcotion had exposed the applicants to any dang:er with regard to

their lives. They were mer'ely speculating.

no evldence had been shown to prove thatthe ,applicant's rig:ht to

movement had ,bee:ninwriinged because there was no evidence

showwng th8ltthe story hadlndted iiUIY public vidence llead~ng~t!e

a ppHca nts to restreted C~iIUC.u latlo n or to hid i ngl.

- rel~ying upon the affidavit by Pa~l~ i<:a1IQalbc, Counsel flnellv submitted

bel IiIg hornosexuels thev had not come to court witt!l dean hands

and eq uity would denv them the reillilefs sought by them through 'tJh:is

motlon,

6

ThI(1llt is the right to Ili~e under Arl:ic~e 24 of the ConsUrution and the night to

GOlUlrt must state" broadlrYt that it du~y ogrees with learned counsel, Dr.

Onorla, that his motion is neither about homosexuality as such nor is it an

abstra cit a p pU cation, as I earned for the respondents seems to suggest. It

rl 9 hts of tl~ e. alP pHca nts 'Oli th neatened to d oso,

Secondly, and in that regardi,itis qutte ~mpolrtal1tto not-e that the jurisdl~ction

a b out ~ nfrl ngedl IU~ 9 hts a ~!o ne, That j uri sdl~dio n is duo in IrrllcttJlj re, It 'extends to

any perso~ whose fundamental rights or other rights or freedoms have been

infdngle{j Wirl the first place. In the second place, the jlJlrisd~cUon also covers

perso ns 'Whose fUlinda menta I rig hts OIU other rig hts . or freedom S aJlre

threatened to be ~ nfrru ngedL Ine Ith er case, ,a court of corn peterrt j u ri.sdi ctlon

include compeFilsatioii1l.

which appears to cut across the 'board, [[lithe effect 'that the appllcants have

provtded no evldence 'ewther o,f actual vl]o~!em:e ag,ar~n:sttheir persons or to the 7

privacy 00 theilli homes, does not appear to be weU founded, Rellwef may be

obta i n ed by 0 n a p pUCCI nt, i riI th is constl tutlo nal~ Ililbig,ation I !!JllnlderArtiCie 5 O( 1.)

be infr~n9'e.d by the action of the respondient"

Wlth regard to the right to human d~gnH:y and pr-o~ection from ilnhuman

],00,2" SKQB.S06 that tne court must use an objective test" llhe effect of

ldentttles of the a ppllca rnts amici! their homes ,and makinQI the calls for hanging

ttl e rn, is ~eft O!LWt as b ei ngl i rreleva nt, Upon that obj ediive test" OOI!J!rt: wCllul d

,e'C!lsilrry conclude that by publishingl the idientities of~~e applicants and

the other rnemoers of the ,community who are reg'arded as worthy t in equal

measure, of human dignity and who ought to be treated as woliJny 'Of diign:ity

threaten their right to human dignity. neath is the ulltimate end of aU that is

known wOlrl~dllly to be g,oodl. If ~ person is on~ly worthy of death, and 8

arbltra rl ~iy 1 thenthet perso n's h u rna n dI~g n i1l:y is: p laced ,at th e lowest ebb, It is

threatened to be abused orinfriingled. ..

the exposure, of the idlenti'ti:es o,ftlhie: persons and homes of the applicants for

seen from the: general outlook of the impugned pl~b~lh:a~]on"threat-en the

entmt:~!ed to that rmg ht,

U must be noted that thil$ olpplication is not about; hOlmo,gexuall~ty per se mt is

about fundamentat rights and freedoms" HOiWE!Velr, court not agrees. tlnalt

section 145, of the Penal Code Act renders every person who ms gaiy a

Court WOUli !d,th erefore, find t~alt the wtm pug ned IP u bll cationth re,Ciltened the

inhuman treatment and the rfght~o privacy of tine person olndi home" Court

further pu bHcatiio ns of the iiden~iti~s of the persons a ndi ho mes of the

Tumwekwa:s_i:ze: And! Otll1,ers Vs Attornnel G,e'IiIIU'SII HC~Mlscell'aneollJs

the lri,ghts complained of by the appi'ilcants in aU those case. The ,~wa,rdls for

cornpensstlon made are, therefore not good! ,gu~des wiitlh regarciltoth~s

a p pll cation where the re were m ere~hreatsto me rrwghts in q uestlon,

Court acc-ordiingly awards ShS.J,500fClOOJ~ to each appHcant as

compensation. In add~ltion, the olppllh:ant shall recover their costs from the

respondents,

Judge