By Sarah Akampurira 

From a community perspective, one of the most rewarding aspects of the 13th Annual National Inter-University Constitutional Law Moot Court Competition was seeing young people unpack real problems affecting people’s access to health services. 

What stood out was not simply the competition itself or the desire among participating universities to emerge as winners or demonstrate a strong command of English. It was the way young people were able to take everyday challenges faced by communities and examine them through the provisions of the law. 

Across the country, communities continue to grapple with challenges in accessing essential health services. For some people, a health facility may be several kilometres away. For others, the journey is made more difficult by poor roads, limited transport and the cost of getting there. Even after making the difficult journey, people may find that the service they need is unavailable, requiring them to travel even further. 

These may sound like ordinary community complaints. But what happens when young people begin to ask; What does the law say about this? What responsibility does the government have? What rights are affected when a person cannot access the health service they need simply because the facility is too far away or the road is impassable? 

This is where the moot competition became much more than a legal contest. 

Universities from across the country participated, bringing different ideas, perspectives, research, interpretations and experiences. Through debate, legal submissions and the comparison of arguments, the students were not simply seeking to win a competition. In many ways, they were examining problems that communities regularly face. 

A community member may simply say, “The health centre is too far.” Another may say, “The road becomes impassable when it rains.” A mother may explain the difficulty of travelling long distances to seek antenatal care or have her child immunised. A young person may speak about the challenges of accessing services that respond to their particular needs. 

The young lawyers, however, are challenged to ask another question: What does this mean from a rights and legal perspective? 

That shift in perspective is important. 

Viewed through the AAAQ framework of availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality, the CEHURD Moot gave university students an opportunity to examine everyday experiences beyond the immediate problem. Distance to a health facility becomes a question of accessibility. Poor roads raise questions about whether people can practically reach essential services. Gaps in health services raise questions about availability and quality. Whether services respond appropriately to people’s needs also raises questions of acceptability. 

Community experiences therefore become a starting point for examining whether existing systems are delivering what the law and public health commitments require. 

The moot demonstrated the value of creating spaces where young people can connect what they learn in law school with what people experience in their communities. It is one thing to understand constitutional provisions in a classroom. It is another to apply those provisions to the circumstances of a mother who cannot reach a health facility, a young person who struggles to access services, or a family that cannot afford the cost of travelling to the nearest facility. 

This approach also challenges the idea that legal advocacy belongs only in courtrooms. Sometimes, advocacy begins by asking the right questions. The 2026 moot problem reflected real-life experiences. 

Why is a health facility so far from the people it is intended to serve? What happens when a road prevents someone from reaching care? Who is responsible for ensuring that public services are accessible? What mechanisms exist for communities to demand better services? And what does the Constitution say about all this? 

One of the justices on the panel encouraged students to avoid arguing from emotion and instead base their submissions on the law and evidence. Yet, from the perspective of a social worker, I found something deeply rewarding in seeing these young lawyers bring an understanding of human experience and emotion to their interpretation of the law. It reminded me that behind every legal provision is a person, a family or a community whose lived reality gives meaning to the law. 

For a social worker and community health practitioner, these are not merely legal questions, they are community questions as well. The participation of Universities from different parts of the country also brought an important dimension to the discussion. Students brought different interpretations and perspectives, demonstrating that community problems can be understood from multiple angles. Through research, arguments, and debate, they demonstrated how legal knowledge can be used to examine social realities rather than remain confined to academic texts. 

At its heart, the moot experience demonstrated something simple: the law becomes more meaningful when it connects with people’s lived realities. 

For communities, the hope is that the energy, curiosity and legal understanding demonstrated by the students will extend beyond the moot courtroom into more concrete conversations about improving health services. 

The writer heads the Community Empowerment Programme at the Centre for Health, Human Rights and Development (CEHURD).