Wakilii

Collaboration of International ICT Policy for East & Southern Africa (CIPESA) & 2 Others v Initiative for Social & Economic Rights (ISER) Limited & 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application 650 of 2022) [20

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 650 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to intervene as amicus curiae in underlying miscellaneous cause
Decision
Applicants granted leave to intervene as amici curiae in the main cause

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The High Court granted three human rights organisations leave to intervene as amici curiae in proceedings concerning mandatory national identification requirements for accessing social security benefits. The Court held that the applicant organisations satisfied the statutory requirements under the Judicature (Amicus Curiae) Rules: they were neutral and impartial despite having views on the legal issues; they possessed demonstrable expertise in digital identity systems, data protection and human rights; their submissions addressed novel legal concepts not raised by the parties concerning data protection, digital inclusion and surveillance; and they were not introducing new evidence or a fresh cause of action. The Court rejected objections based on alleged bias, holding that an amicus may have views that favour one party without being partial, and that giving expert evidence in an unrelated prior case does not demonstrate bias.

Outcome

Applicants granted leave to intervene as amici curiae in the main cause

Facts

Three international human rights organisations specialising in digital rights, data protection, privacy and internet freedom applied for leave to intervene as amici curiae in Miscellaneous Cause No. 86 of 2022. The underlying main cause concerned a challenge to Uganda's requirement that citizens present a national identification number or enrol in the national digital identification system to access SAGE social security benefits and public health services. The applicant organisations asserted they possessed regional and international expertise on digital identity systems, biometric systems, data management, surveillance, privacy rights and socio-economic rights, and that their submissions would address novel legal concepts concerning data protection and digital inclusion not raised by the parties. The 4th and 5th Respondents (the Attorney General and NIRA) opposed the application on three grounds: alleged bias and partiality because the applicants' views appeared to support the main cause applicants' case; introduction of fresh causes of action and new evidence; and absence of novelty in the points of law raised. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents did not oppose.

Issues

  1. Whether the application discloses sufficient grounds for the Applicants to be granted leave to intervene as Amici Curiae?

Orders

  • The Applicants are granted leave to intervene as Amici Curiae in Miscellaneous Cause No. 86 of 2022.
  • The joint amicus brief filed by the Applicants onto this application is adopted by the Court subject to the Applicants' right to make any necessary changes.
  • In case of any changes to the amicus brief, the same shall be drawn to the attention of the Court and the parties' Counsel before the hearing of the main cause.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Amicus Curiae — Requirements for Admission — Neutrality and Impartiality
An applicant for admission as amicus curiae is not shown to lack neutrality or impartiality merely because their legal submissions, if accepted by the court, may favour one party's case. Neutrality and impartiality require absence of vested interest in the outcome and openness to conviction, not absence of views on the legal issues. The fact that an amicus brief may support the legal position of one party does not demonstrate bias where the applicant is not a potential beneficiary of the rights being litigated and has no predisposition or pre-conceived opinion that closes their mind to conviction.
Amicus Curiae — Prior Expert Evidence — Effect on Impartiality
The fact that an applicant for amicus status previously gave expert evidence in a different case against one of the respondents does not demonstrate bias or partiality unless there is evidence that the applicant is an interested party with a vested interest in the outcome. Giving expert evidence, more so in an unrelated matter on a different subject, does not impair a person's impartiality.
Amicus Curiae — Introduction of New Evidence — Distinction from Legal Concepts
An amicus curiae must not introduce new evidence in the matter, but may draw the court's attention to relevant legal concepts, principles and matters of law that are useful, focused and principled. Legal concepts advanced by an applicant in line with their expertise do not constitute evidence. Where an amicus brief does introduce evidence, the court has power to reject or expunge such parts, providing sufficient safeguard against prejudice to the parties.
Amicus Curiae — Novelty — Meaning and Application
Under the Judicature (Amicus Curiae) Rules, 'novel' means the quality of being new, original, unfamiliar, unusual or unique. Legal concepts that are new, unfamiliar, unusual or unique to the proceedings possess the quality of novelty required for admission as amicus curiae. Matters such as data protection, digital inclusion, surveillance and their impact on privacy rights in the context of government social security programmes may constitute novel legal concepts warranting amicus participation.
Amicus Curiae — Statutory Requirements — Judicature (Amicus Curiae) Rules
Under rule 5 of the Judicature (Amicus Curiae) Rules S.I No. 54 of 2022, a court may admit a person or organisation as amicus curiae where: (a) the person or organisation is neutral and impartial; (b) the submission will give assistance the court would not otherwise have; (c) the points of law or facts are novel and will aid development of jurisprudence; (d) the interest constitutes fidelity to the law; (e) submissions draw attention to relevant matters of law that are useful, focused and principled; (f) participation is in the public interest; and (g) the person or organisation has demonstrable expertise or knowledge in the area under dispute.
Amicus Curiae — Grounds for Objection — Statutory Framework
Under rule 8(1) of the Judicature (Amicus Curiae) Rules, a party may object to admission of a person or organisation as amicus curiae where: (a) the applicant does not have sufficient expertise; (b) the applicant is introducing new evidence; (c) the applicant is not impartial or is biased or hostile towards one or more parties; or (d) the applicant, through previous conduct, appears to be partisan on the issue before court. The respondent objecting bears the burden of establishing these grounds.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Constitution of Uganda Article 50(2)
  • Judicature (Amicus Curiae) Rules S.I No. 54 of 2022 rule 5
  • Judicature (Amicus Curiae) Rules S.I No. 54 of 2022 rule 6
  • Judicature (Amicus Curiae) Rules S.I No. 54 of 2022 rule 8
  • Judicature (Amicus Curiae) Rules S.I No. 54 of 2022 rule 9

Cases cited (3)

  • Prof. Joe Oloka-Onyango and Others v Amama Mbabazi and Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 2 of 2016)
  • Cyber Law Initiative and Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 26 of 2018)
  • Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance vs Mumo Matemo & 5 Others, SC Civil Application No. 12 of 2013 (Kenya)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Collaboration of International ICT Policy for East & Southern Africa (CIPESA) & 2 Others v Initiative for Social & Economic Rights (ISER) Limited & 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application 650 of 2022) [20
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.