A CEHURD Moot Coordinator’s Perspective 

By Esther Dhafa 

A story that refused to stay hypothetical 

Every year, as CEHURD plans and convenes the Annual National Inter-University Constitutional Law Moot Court Competition, a hypothetical moot problem is drafted that, although fictional, speaks directly to the realities many young people in Uganda face in exercising their reproductive and gender justice rights. 

This year’s moot problem centred on Awiti, a fifteen-year-old netball captain in the fictional State of Ngetta, who sought contraceptives at her local health centre but was ignored and turned away because she lacked parental consent. Weeks later, after becoming pregnant, experiencing a family breakdown, ingesting a concoction of bleach and shoe polish, and undergoing two attempted unsafe procedures, Awiti eventually died while being transported in the only available ambulance, which had been unavailable the previous night because of another emergency. 

Although the Republic of Ngetta was imaginary, Awiti’s reality was not. Under the moot theme, “Reproductive and Gender Justice in Uganda: Navigating Constitutional Rights, Public Interest and Social Values,” students from different law schools and universities across Uganda spent two months preparing to examine the complex legal and ethical questions raised by her story. Their preparations culminated in two days of intense engagement at Hotel Africana in Kampala. Over those two days, we at CEHURD watched these young legal minds grapple with difficult questions and step beyond their comfort zones to discuss sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR), a topic that many people still find difficult to discuss openly or fully understand. 

Out of the classroom, off the bench 

In CEHURD’s Moot Competition, students are the main participants and remain at the centre of the experience. Many arrived with well-developed memorials, having spent time preparing and memorising their submissions and arguments. Yet, when the questions began, some voices trembled, despite their thorough preparation and understanding of the key issues surrounding reproductive and gender justice. 

The justices on the final panel on the second day balanced firmness with encouragement, offering clear guidance that helped prepare the students for the realities of appearing before courts as future advocates. 

Justice Geoffrey Kiryabwire drew an analogy between the moot and a football match, reminding the students that they had only twenty minutes to “score their goal” by presenting their arguments effectively. He explained that “dribbling around the pitch” without advancing a clear argument within the allocated time could leave the judges missing the point. 

Lady Justice Aisha Naluzze Batala observed that some submissions sounded more like dissertations than court arguments. However, she encouraged the students, acknowledging that they had raised some good points and urging them not to be embarrassed by the feedback. Instead, they could use it to refine their arguments and improve their advocacy skills. 

We also saw judicial officers, including magistrates and judges, step beyond their usual courtroom settings. During this year’s Moot Competition, the preliminary, quarter-final and semi-final rounds were presided over by nine magistrates from selected Chief Magistrates’ Courts and Magistrates’ Courts across Uganda. They played an important role in guiding the law students through a subject that many Ugandan courtrooms still approach with caution. 

His Worship Osauro John Paul reminded the mooters that “lawyering is about persuasion.” Her Worship Kambedha Lydia encouraged them to concede points where necessary and honestly acknowledge gaps in their arguments, offering a valuable lesson in professional integrity and effective advocacy. 

The final round was presided over by five senior judicial officers from the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Uganda. Presenting their arguments on the hypothetical problem before these judges brought the mooters’ experience closer to that of an actual courtroom. It was a challenging yet exciting opportunity to engage with judicial officers whom many might otherwise encounter only later in their legal careers. 

Setting bias aside 

The greatest challenge during the Moot Competition was neither the students’ nervousness nor their familiarity with courtroom procedures. It was conviction. 

Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR) is not a subject that many people discuss neutrally, and the moot did not pretend otherwise. The Attorney General’s case, as presented in the moot problem, emphasised child protection, parental responsibility, and religious and sociocultural values – principles that many Ugandans hold deeply, including some of the participants. 

The competition was designed to ensure that no team remained on the more comfortable side of the argument, as each had to present the case for both the applicants and the respondents. A law student who privately believed that adolescents should be able to access contraception had to develop the strongest possible legal argument for why parental consent was not necessary in the circumstances presented. Conversely, a student who held a different view had to defend that position. 

To promote fairness and minimise potential bias, the Moot Competition uses confidential codes to identify participating teams, with University names omitted from memorials and oral submissions. 

In a field such as reproductive and gender justice, which touches deeply on matters of faith and identity, anonymity gave every team an opportunity to have its arguments assessed on merit. This was particularly important given the different religious affiliations of participating Universities. Some faith-based institutions, often assumed to favour one side of the debate, demonstrated through their legal arguments that justice and rights-based reasoning can be learned and applied when arguing either side of a case. 

The bench modelled this impartiality, too, with judges repeatedly reminding participants that a court cannot decide a case on empathy alone but must apply the law. Lady Justice Aisha Naluzze Batala noted that access to contraceptives for minors must be considered alongside cultural and societal values. 

Through these discussions, we observed the participants’ growing ability to consider competing perspectives while using the law as their anchor. The strongest arguments did not present one position as the only truth. Instead, they examined the State’s blanket age and consent requirements against constitutional guarantees of dignity, life, equality and non-discrimination, while also considering the need to protect children. A central question was whether these requirements genuinely served the best interests of the child or risked exposing her to further harm. 

Key lessons and reflections 

From my experience coordinating the moot, I have learnt over time that advocacy is as much about listening as it is about making arguments. It requires listening before judging. 

Her Worship Ariokot Esther Joyce reminded the mooters that winning the competition was not about who “cited the most laws”. In moot court, as in legal practice, effective advocacy requires identifying the real question behind a judge’s questions and responding directly. 

Justice Eva Luswata also encouraged the students to organise their submissions into short, clear points and summarise facts in their own words. These practical skills are essential to effective legal argument and professional practice. 

The Moot Competition also made it clear that difficult cases, particularly those involving issues that are misunderstood or deeply contested, are very real. As lawyers and advocates at CEHURD who continuously litigate such matters in court, we know that reproductive and gender justice cases are profoundly difficult to adjudicate. Seeing law students experience and grapple with that difficulty, rather than gloss over it, was one of the moot’s quiet victories. 

It is no wonder that Justice Kiryabwire encouraged the students to state their arguments clearly and let the judges decide, and to attend actual court sessions early in their legal careers. 

Our digital campaign, which ran under the hashtags #CEHURDMoot2026 and #ReproductiveJustice, generated 199 posts and 8.32 million potential impressions. The judges’ reflections and the students’ voices helped extend the conversation to audiences who might never otherwise step into a moot courtroom. 

Why the Moot matters 

The impact of the moot becomes visible gradually. It emerges in a young lawyer or law student who remains composed when a judge challenges an argument, in the growth of students’ understanding and the improvement of their oral submissions, and in a judge or magistrate who has had an opportunity to think deeply about SRHR and adolescent health rights before encountering a real case involving similar issues. 

Our aim has always been to build a movement of young lawyers and advocates equipped with the skills to litigate health and reproductive justice cases in the future. 

Sadly, Awiti’s story in the hypothetical moot problem ended in tragedy. Timely access to healthcare, a functioning ambulance, or an appropriate legal and policy framework on reproductive justice might have prevented her death. However, the students who argued her case will not leave the experience unchanged. Although not all of them will become health and human rights litigators, they will carry Awiti’s story with them. They will also have learnt to approach difficult cases fairly and rigorously, setting aside their own convictions to engage with competing perspectives. This is a skill worth carrying into any classroom, courtroom, or community. 

Conclusion 

Throughout the competition, the mooters demonstrated that effective advocacy requires a sound understanding of the facts, the ability to identify the core issues in a case, clarity in presenting arguments to the court, and an awareness of the people whose rights are at stake. The winning teams exemplified these qualities. 

At the 13th Annual National Inter-University Constitutional Law Moot Court Competition, Uganda Christian University (UCU), Mukono, received the award for Best Memorial, while the Islamic University in Uganda (IUIU), Kampala Campus, received the award for Second-Best Memorial. Alison Faith Kitimbo emerged as the Best Oralist. 

The overall champions of the Moot Competition were the Islamic University in Uganda (IUIU), Females Campus, with Uganda Pentecostal University (UPU), Fort Portal, emerging as the first runner-up. 

The writer is a Lawyer/Advocate and Moot Coordinator, Center for Health, Human Rights and Development (CEHURD).