By Monicah Kurwenza

The 13th Annual National Inter-University Constitutional Law Moot Court Competition provided a lens through which to examine Uganda’s fractured reproductive rights landscape. This article analyses the systemic tension between rigid statutory provisions governing adolescent sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) and the public health realities on the ground. It reflects on the structural denial of reproductive health information and services, the constraints faced by the judiciary, and progressive legislative developments in the region. 

Held on 24 and 25 September 2026, Law students gathered to argue under the theme, “Reproductive and Gender Justice in Uganda: Navigating Constitutional Rights, Public Interest and Social Values.” Standing before a formidable panel of justices, students engaged in complex constitutional arguments about whether State-imposed parental consent requirements for minors seeking contraceptives could violate fundamental rights, including the right to life. Yet, a sobering message emerged from the discussions: these are profoundly difficult areas to adjudicate. The presiding judges emphasised that, as jurists, they must operate within the law and the constitutional framework. This highlighted the painful systemic gap between legal limitations and human survival. 

This tension between legal rules and public health realities is particularly evident in rural districts. In Uganda, adolescents in rural communities face a dual crisis; limited access to rights-based sexual and reproductive health (SRH) information and significant structural barriers to accessing services.

Consider the reality of a 15-year-old girl clutching a torn school notebook, trying to blend into the shadows of a crowded waiting room. With limited access to reliable information, partly because of restrictions surrounding sexuality education, she attempts to access modern contraceptives to protect her future, only to encounter an invisible wall. Because domestic guidelines remain unclear or fragmented in their application, healthcare workers may demand parental consent or act as moral gatekeepers out of fear of administrative sanctions. Denying an adolescent confidential information and care does not halt sexual activity; it leaves her more vulnerable to unintended pregnancy, child marriage and disrupted opportunities. 

When preventative measures fail, Uganda’s legal framework on abortion can further complicate the situation. Article 22(2) of the Constitution provides that no person has the right to terminate the life of an unborn child except as may be authorised by law. The Penal Code Act also contains provisions restricting the termination of pregnancy. The interaction between these provisions, the scope of lawful abortion and the practical guidance available to healthcare workers remains an important subject of legal and public health discussion. 

This legislative uncertainty persists despite landmark public interest litigation, such as Constitutional Petition No. 16 of 2011 (CEHURD & Others v. Attorney General), which addressed failures in maternal healthcare and the State’s obligation to protect constitutional rights. Where legal uncertainty persists, healthcare workers may fear criminal liability, and the gap between the law and access to appropriate care can have devastating consequences. 

While affluent women may be better positioned to access private healthcare, impoverished adolescents may have fewer options and face greater risks when seeking to terminate an unintended pregnancy. The consequences can be devastating, particularly for those who experience complications and require emergency care. Behind these outcomes are young lives affected by barriers to information, timely healthcare and appropriate support. 

This situation stands in contrast to regional legislative developments. Rwanda has recently taken steps to lower age-related barriers to accessing reproductive health services. 

In August 2025, Rwanda’s Parliament passed a Health Services Law that lowered the age for independently consenting to reproductive health services from 18 to 15. This reform offers a relevant point of comparison for Uganda as it considers how legal frameworks can respond to adolescents’ healthcare needs. 

Conclusion 

The law students who competed demonstrated the potential of the next generation of lawyers to navigate complex constitutional questions. Beyond academic competition, the value of the 2026 CEHURD Moot lay in its capacity to bring the human consequences of legal and institutional barriers into focus. By centering the moot problem on whether State-imposed age and parental consent requirements for adolescents seeking contraceptives violate fundamental rights, including the rights to health and life, CEHURD opened up important discussions about public health challenges that stigma often keeps hidden at the community level. 

The competition drew attention to the everyday SRHR challenges confronting adolescent girls in Uganda, demonstrating that limited access to information, parental consent barriers and unsafe attempts to terminate pregnancies are not merely legal hypotheticals but matters of survival. The discussions also underscored that, while courts have an important role in interpreting and enforcing constitutional rights, lasting change requires action beyond the courtroom. Fulfilling the spirit of this year’s theme requires coordinated action by legislative and administrative policymakers to address the legal and practical barriers that prevent adolescents from accessing appropriate reproductive healthcare. 

The writer is a Lawyer and Project Legal Officer in the Strategic Litigation Department at the Centre for Health, Human Rights and Development (CEHURD).