Wakilii

Media legal Defence Initiative and Ors. v Ssembuusi and Anor (Application 4 of 2015)

East African Court of Justice · [2016] EACJ 119 · 2016 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appear as amici curiae in Reference No. 16 of 2014
Decision
Application granted; applicants joined as amici curiae in Reference No. 16 of 2014

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 held that organisations with expertise in freedom of expression may be granted leave to appear as amici curiae where they demonstrate an interest in the outcome of proceedings and satisfy the test of justification, notwithstanding their advocacy mandate in the subject area. The Court distinguished scholarly interest and expertise from bias, holding that an amicus curiae's mandate in a particular legal area does not disqualify it from providing impartial legal analysis. The Court retains discretion to disregard any amicus brief that seeks to improperly influence the outcome rather than assist the Court.

Outcome

Application granted; applicants joined as amici curiae in Reference No. 16 of 2014

Facts

Media Legal Defence Initiative and 19 other organisations applied for leave to appear as amici curiae in Reference No. 16 of 2014, which challenged sections 179 and 180 of Uganda's Penal Code Act (criminal defamation provisions) as violating freedom of expression under the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community. The applicants are organisations focused on promoting freedom of expression, including freedom of the press and access to information. The First Respondent did not object to the application. The Second Respondent opposed, arguing that the applicants' public statements and advocacy for decriminalisation of defamation demonstrated bias and lack of neutrality, rendering them incapable of being impartial amici curiae. The applicants maintained that their mandate and expertise in freedom of expression issues qualified them to assist the Court and that their interest was fidelity to the law.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants demonstrated an interest in the outcome of Reference No. 16 of 2014 as required by Rule 36(2)(e) of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, 2013.
  2. Whether the applicants satisfied the test of justification for leave to appear as amici curiae under Rule 36(4) of the Rules.
  3. Whether the applicants' public statements and advocacy on decriminalisation of defamation rendered them incapable of neutrality as amici curiae.

Orders

  • Medical Legal Defence Initiative (MLDI) and 19 Others granted leave to join Reference No. 16 of 2014 as amici curiae.
  • The amici curiae granted leave to submit a joint Amicus Brief in writing in Reference No. 16 of 2014 within such time frame as shall be directed by the Court.
  • The Amicus Brief shall be restricted to issues within the amici curiae's mandate and of specific relevance to the Reference.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amicus Curiae — Requirements for Leave to Appear
An applicant for leave to appear as amicus curiae must demonstrate an interest in the outcome of the case under Rule 36(2)(e) of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, 2013, and must establish circumstances that prima facie justify its appearance under Rule 36(4).
Civil Procedure — Amicus Curiae — Parameters for Joinder
The parameters for determining joinder of an applicant as amicus curiae are: (a) principle of neutrality — the prospective amicus curiae should be neutral, impartial, and independent of the parties; (b) demonstration of reasonable expertise in the subject matter and fidelity to the law; (c) whether the case involves important questions of law in an area of public interest; (d) whether the questions of law do not concern the parties but are nevertheless a matter of concern to the court; and (e) whether it is in the interest of justice to admit the prospective amicus curiae.
Civil Procedure — Amicus Curiae — Neutrality and Expertise Distinguished from Bias
An organisation's mandate and scholarly interest in a particular area of law, including advocacy for legal reform based on research and expertise, does not constitute bias that disqualifies it from appearing as amicus curiae. Such scholarly interest is to be distinguished from unprincipled, unresearched advocacy typified by pressure groups.
Civil Procedure — Amicus Curiae — Role and Court's Discretion
An amicus curiae assists the court by providing information so that the court will not fall into error, but does not seek to influence the final outcome or persuade the court to adopt a particular view. The court retains discretion to disregard amicus briefs that seek to influence the final outcome or attempt to persuade the court one way or another.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Articles 6(d), 7(2), 8(1)(a), 8(1)(c), 23, 27, 40, 127
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, 2013 Rules 21, 36, 53
  • Uganda Penal Code Act (cap 120) sections 179, 180

Cases cited (7)

  • Burundian Journalist' Union v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi (EACJ Reference No. 7 of 2013)
  • Attorney General v Silver Springs Hotel (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1989)
  • Forum pour le Renforcement de la Societe Civile (FORSC) and 8 Others v Burundi Journalists Union and Another (EACJ Application No. 2 of 2014)
  • UHAI EASHRI and Another v Human Rights Awareness Promotion Forum (HRAPF) and Another (EACJ Applications No. 20 & 21 of 2014)
  • Avocats Sans Frontieres v Mbugua Mureithi Wanyambura and 2 Others (EACJ Application No. 2 of 2013)
  • Dr. Ally Possi and Another v Human Rights Awareness Promotion Forum (HRAPF) and Another (EACJ Application No. 1 of 2015)
  • Secretariat of the joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS v HRAPF and Another (EACJ Application No. 3 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Media legal Defence Initiative and Ors. v Ssembuusi and Anor (Application 4 of 2015) [2016] EACJ 119 (28 June 2016)
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.