By Shamamba Anne Gabriel

Lessons on courtroom advocacy, reproductive health rights and the experience of serving as a clerk at the 13th Annual National Inter-University Constitutional Law Moot Court Competition. 

I did not argue a case or submit a memorial during the 13th Annual National Inter-University Constitutional Law Moot Court Competition. My role was different. I served as a clerk, sitting beside the judges and facing counsel as they presented their arguments. From this position, I witnessed a different dimension of the moot, one that offered valuable lessons on courtroom procedure, constitutional rights and reproductive justice. 

On paper, my responsibilities were straightforward: announcing the case file and number, keeping time, and maintaining courtroom decorum. Yet, the court clerk plays an important role in ensuring that proceedings run smoothly. During the moot, my voice opened each session and helped set the pace for the proceedings. The experience demanded attentiveness, discipline and composure, even as the arguments raised questions that extended beyond the courtroom. 

The theme of this year’s competition, Reproductive and Gender Justice in Uganda: Navigating Constitutional Rights, Public Interest and Social Values, was far from an abstract academic exercise. The competing teams were tasked with examining a pressing constitutional question: whether the State of Ngetta’s failure to provide essential reproductive health services, including contraceptives, to young women violated constitutional protections relating to the right to health. 

As a young woman sitting at the clerk’s table, maintaining a composed and impartial demeanour while counsel debated these issues required considerable discipline. Yet, the arguments brought into focus societal realities that demand serious attention. 

Access to contraceptives and comprehensive, accurate reproductive health information is a matter of health, dignity and informed choice. Young girls do not experience unintended pregnancies simply because they know too much. Rather, limited access to accurate, age-appropriate information about their sexual and reproductive health and rights can leave them ill-equipped to make informed decisions about their lives and health. 

Withholding essential information in the name of culture or social values does not eliminate young people’s sexual and reproductive health needs. Instead, it risks limiting their ability to make informed decisions and protect their health. 

Watching counsel navigate the tensions between public interest, constitutional rights and social values revealed why reproductive justice remains a contested subject. Legal and policy questions surrounding access to reproductive health services are often shaped by deeply held religious and cultural beliefs, making it necessary to examine how these beliefs interact with constitutional protections. 

From the clerk’s table, however, the human implications were difficult to overlook. When a girl cannot access contraceptives or even basic reproductive health information, her health, education, dignity and future opportunities may be put at risk. 

This is why CEHURD’s choice of theme was significant. By bringing these questions into the courtroom, the competition challenged law students and aspiring legal practitioners to examine access to reproductive health services through the lens of constitutional rights and justice, rather than treating it as a subject to be avoided or left unexamined. 

Serving as a clerk at the 13th Annual National Inter-University Constitutional Law Moot Court Competition, was a valuable learning experience. Although I did not leave with a competitor’s trophy, I was honoured to receive a Certificate of Appreciation in recognition of my role as a moot court clerk. 

More importantly, I left with greater confidence, a deeper understanding of the right to health and practical experience in facilitating courtroom proceedings. The experience taught me that meaningful engagement with justice does not happen only through the arguments presented by counsel. It also involves the discipline, preparation and impartiality that allow those arguments to be heard. 

For me, the moot was a reminder that questions of reproductive justice are not confined to legal texts or courtroom debates. They concern real people, their choices, their dignity and their access to essential health services. As I continue my journey in the legal profession, these are lessons I will carry with me. 

The writer is a Clerkship Student in the Strategic Litigation Department at the Center for Health, Human Rights and Development (CEHURD).