• Report a rights violation:
  • 0800 300 044
  • info@cehurd.org
UCHD2025
Posted on Categories Article, Featured

Beyond a Moot Problem: When Reality Strikes! 

By Jay Tumwesige

The discourse on reproductive and gender justice in Uganda extends beyond courtroom litigation to encompass broader questions of individual autonomy, human dignity, equality, non-discrimination, healthcare access and State responsibility. At its core, the debate concerns the relationship between constitutional rights, public interest and the social, cultural and moral values that shape Ugandan society. The central constitutional challenge is therefore not merely to determine whether particular reproductive decisions are legally permissible, but also to establish the conditions under which individuals may exercise their rights meaningfully, safely and with dignity. 

Reproductive justice is best understood as a multidimensional concept that extends beyond the formal recognition of reproductive autonomy. It includes the ability to make informed reproductive decisions, access appropriate and affordable healthcare, obtain accurate information, and live free from coercion, discrimination and gender-based violence. It also requires consideration of the socioeconomic conditions in which reproductive choices are made. Poverty, geographical disparities in healthcare provision, limited educational opportunities, inadequate infrastructure, gender inequality and social stigma may significantly restrict the practical enjoyment of legally recognised rights. 

Uganda’s Constitution provides an important normative framework for addressing these concerns. Guarantees relating to human dignity, equality, personal liberty, freedom from discrimination and the protection of fundamental rights impose obligations not only on courts but also on Parliament, the Executive, healthcare institutions, educational institutions, law enforcement agencies, employers and other public and private actors. Constitutionalism must therefore be understood as an institutional obligation reflected in the treatment of patients, the protection of survivors of sexual violence, the inclusion of pregnant students, the protection of pregnant workers and the accessibility of public healthcare services. 

A meaningful conception of gender justice further requires a distinction between formal and substantive equality. A formally neutral rule may produce unequal outcomes where individuals occupy different social and economic positions. Pregnancy, childbirth, caregiving responsibilities, disability, poverty and exposure to gender-based violence may create forms of disadvantage that identical treatment fails to address. Substantive equality consequently requires an examination of the distribution of power and resources: who controls reproductive decisions, who has access to economic and medical resources, whose experiences are recognised by law, and who bears the consequences of reproductive choices. 

This analysis must also engage with the relationship between individual rights and cultural or religious values. Family, religion, tradition and community remain significant features of Ugandan social life. Constitutional democracy should therefore accommodate legitimate moral and cultural pluralism. Nevertheless, cultural or religious beliefs cannot provide an unrestricted justification for discrimination, coercion, violence or the denial of human dignity. Respect for social values must coexist with a minimum constitutional threshold of equality, autonomy and fundamental freedoms applicable to all persons. 

The State’s responsibility extends beyond enacting legislation or developing judicial doctrine. Rights acquire practical meaning through effective implementation, including investment in healthcare infrastructure, reproductive health education, legal aid, professional training, public awareness, institutional oversight and accessible mechanisms of redress. Particular attention must be given to adolescents, women with disabilities, survivors of sexual and gender-based violence, persons living in poverty, and rural or underserved communities, whose formally recognised rights may be constrained by distance, cost, stigma, dependence or institutional discrimination. An intersectional approach is therefore essential to identifying how multiple forms of disadvantage interact. 

Reproductive and gender justice should consequently be regarded as a shared constitutional project. Courts remain vital forums for interpreting rights and holding institutions accountable, but Parliament, the Executive, healthcare providers, schools, workplaces, families, religious institutions, traditional leaders and civil society also shape the conditions in which rights are exercised.

The moot court is therefore not the conclusion of the constitutional conversation, but an entry point into a broader examination of how legal principles operate in hospitals, schools, homes, workplaces, police stations, communities and public institutions. 

Ultimately, the legitimacy of Ugandan constitutionalism depends not only on the sophistication of judicial reasoning or the existence of rights in constitutional texts, but also on whether individuals experience dignity, equality, autonomy, security and access to justice in their everyday lives. Reproductive and gender justice requires enforceable rights, accountable institutions, enabling social conditions and a constitutional culture committed to substantive equality and human dignity. The constitutional contest is therefore not confined to the courtroom; it is resolved through the everyday decisions that determine whether rights become meaningful realities. 

The writer is a Lawyer and Locum in the Strategic Litigation Programme at the Centre for Health, Human Rights and Development (CEHURD). 

Posted on Categories Article, Featured

From Mooter to Observer: Seeing the Moot Anew 

By Mirembe Lindah Namulema 

For 13 years, CEHURD has convened the Annual National Inter-University Constitutional Law Moot Court Competition, bringing together law students from across the country to argue cases involving constitutionally guaranteed rights and examine how these rights are protected, upheld or violated by the State. Each year, the moot presents a different dilemma, often reflecting the realities faced by women and girls, including circumstances that, in the most tragic cases, claim their lives. 

Watching the 13th edition of the Moot Court Competition as a former participant in the 12th edition was exciting, enlightening and, at the same time, a relief. It was comforting to sit on the other side without experiencing the pressure, sleepless nights, endless research and anxiety that came with being a mooter. The advocacy, confidence, and legal reasoning on display showed that the culture of mooting continues to grow. 

However, the competition also exposed a familiar challenge, many students appeared to view the moot primarily as an opportunity to win rather than as a learning experience. 

For some students, failing to advance to the next round affected their morale and interest in the competition, diminishing its learning value and purpose. Personally, when I was a mooter, I was largely focused on the competition itself: getting the authorities right, defending our arguments, responding to questions from the bench and, ultimately, trying to win. I did not always take time to reflect on the human realities behind the facts beyond what was necessary to build our case. 

After undertaking my internship at CEHURD, I now understand that the facts presented in moot problems are not merely hypothetical situations created to test legal reasoning. They often mirror the lived realities of women, girls and other vulnerable people whose rights have been violated. Behind what appears to be a fictional problem may lie a very real injustice. 

Every year, students have the opportunity to argue before experienced judicial officers from Uganda’s Courts of Judicature. This exposure helps them sharpen their legal research, develop written and oral advocacy skills, think on their feet and defend a position under pressure. It also challenges them to work as a team, manage time, engage critically with legal authorities and, perhaps most importantly, find their voices as young advocates. 

That is part of what makes the CEHURD Moot so important. It does not simply develop better mooters, it has the potential to shape young lawyers who understand that constitutional law is ultimately about people and the protection of their rights. Moreover, the moot gives students from different universities an opportunity to meet, network and learn from one another. 

The 13th Annual National Inter-University Constitutional Law Moot Court Competition was undoubtedly a success. I extend my heartfelt gratitude to CEHURD for continuing to create this space and invest in the next generation of lawyers. Having experienced the moot first as a participant and later as an observer, I have come to appreciate that its lessons extend far beyond the competition itself and remain with participants long after it ends. 

The writer is an Intern at the Centre for Health, Human Rights and Development (CEHURD) and was named Best Oralist at CEHURD’s 12th Annual National Inter-University Constitutional Law Moot Court Competition held in 2025.