Wakilii

FORSC and Others v Burundian Journalists Union and Another (Application 2 of 2014)

East African Court of Justice · [2014] EACJ 137 · 2014 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to participate as amici curiae in Reference No. 7 of 2013
Decision
Applicants admitted as amici curiae with direction to file one consolidated set of submissions

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 Court granted the application allowing civil society organisations and NGOs with expertise in press freedom to participate as amici curiae in Reference No. 7 of 2013. The Court held that admission of amici curiae is discretionary and that organisations with relevant expertise can assist the Court in settling its jurisprudence, particularly in matters relating to freedom of expression and the press under the EAC Treaty.

Outcome

Applicants admitted as amici curiae with direction to file one consolidated set of submissions

Facts

Nine civil society organisations and NGOs operating within and outside Burundi sought leave to participate as amici curiae in Reference No. 7 of 2013, which challenges Burundian press law provisions as contrary to EAC Treaty freedoms. The applicants claimed expertise in press freedom and offered to assist the Court on identifying media regulation infringements and explaining why press freedom is essential to EAC principles. The 1st Respondent (Burundian Journalists' Union) supported the application. The 2nd Respondent (Attorney-General of Burundi) opposed, arguing the applicants submitted no documents proving expertise, that the Court has sufficient legal expertise, that parties to the reference could provide any needed assistance, and that admitting the applicants would unnecessarily duplicate submissions and increase costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicants should be granted leave to participate in Reference No. 7 of 2013 as amici curiae.
  2. Whether the Applicants have demonstrated sufficient interest and expertise to assist the Court on matters of press freedom and freedom of expression.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Applicants admitted as amici curiae in Reference No. 7 of 2013.
  • Applicants limited to filing only one set of submissions within the timeframe to be determined by the Court.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amicus Curiae — Admission to Proceedings — Discretion of Court
The admission or non-admission of an amicus curiae to judicial proceedings is a matter of discretion which must be exercised judiciously based on the facts placed before the Court and not on extraneous matters.
Civil Procedure — Amicus Curiae — Requirements for Admission — Interest, Relevance and New Contentions
An amicus curiae must have an interest in the proceedings and its submissions must be relevant to the proceedings and raise new contentions which may be useful to the Court.
Civil Procedure — Amicus Curiae — Role and Duty — Drawing Court's Attention to Relevant Matters
The role of an amicus curiae is to draw the attention of the Court to relevant matters of law and fact to which attention would not otherwise be drawn, and an amicus has a special duty to provide cogent and helpful submissions that assist the Court.
Civil Procedure — Amicus Curiae — Statement of Interest — Evidentiary Requirements
Where an advocate who is an officer of the Court makes a statement of interest on behalf of applicants for amicus status and the opposing party does not show the applicants do not exist, the Court may accept the officer's statement even in the absence of comprehensive documentary proof of the applicants' mandates.
Civil Procedure — Amicus Curiae — Benefit to Court — Development of Jurisprudence
A court in the process of settling its jurisprudence will benefit from assistance from experts and groups with relevant experience and expertise in relevant areas of law, and to turn away such applicants merely because they have not filed comprehensive statements of interest would not be a progressive move.

Legislation cited (3)

  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 36
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 6(d)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 7(2)

Cases cited (5)

  • Avocats Sans Frontier v Mbugua Mureithi wa Nyambura (Application No. 2 of 2013)
  • Dritoo v Nile District Administration [1968] EA 428
  • Mbogo v Shah [1968] EA 93
  • Fose v Minister of Safety and Security 1997 (3) SA 786 (CC)
  • Re Certain Amicus Curiae Applications: Minister of Health and Others v Treatment Action Campaign and Others 2002 (5) SA 713 (CC)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

FORSC and Others v Burundian Journalists Union and Another (Application 2 of 2014) [2014] EACJ 137 (15 August 2014)
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.