Court denies public access to Parliament vetting committee

The court also held that the limitation to access to information, expression and of the press and media imposed by Rule 165(2) of the rules of Parliament is acceptable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and a democratic society with the provisions of Articles 43(2) of the Constitution.

“With regards to the prayer that the court issues an injunction to stop Parliament from continuing to implement the challenged rule, the order is not called for because the reasons they sought the order have not been made out to persuade this court to issue it. There being no infringement of any of the rights alleged, the rule should continue to operate,” the judges ruled.

The justices are Irene Mulyagonja, Richard Butera, the Deputy Chief Justice, Catherine Bamugemereire, Muzamiru Kibeedi and Monica Mugenyi.

In the lead judgment, Justice Mulyagonja said the complaining journalists failed to demonstrate that they failed to get proceedings of the Parliamentary vetting committee using the means provided for in the Access to Information Act.

“In the absence of  evidence that Parliament failed, refused or neglected to provide them with information as requested as well as the evidence that they sought to challenge either of those circumstances before court as is provided for in Section 37 and 38 of the Access to Information Act, I am of the view that the petitions did not exhaust their petition to this court to grant the prayers sought for is therefore premature,” Justice Mulyagonja ruled.

She added: “I would, therefore, find that the right to access to information and the freedom of expression and of the press and media is not impaired in any way beyond what is acceptable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society or what is provided for in the Constitution. The impugned rule therefore falls within the ambit of Article 43(2)(c) of the Constitution.”

Court further held that although the conflict within the amalgam of rights in contest for protection in this petition is palpable, the conflict is resolved by Article 4l (2) of the Constitution, much as the information obtained by the Committee is not available in real time, or at the speed that the press and media desire to have and publish it, it can be availed through the procedures that have been provided for by Parliament in the Access to Information Act and is also available through the Report of the Committee which is presented to Parliament soon after the interaction with presidential appointees.

Petition
The court decision followed a petition in which journalists Simon Kaggwa Njala and Sulaiman Kakaire jointly with Legal Brain Trust had sought to challenge the parliamentary vetting process that bars media coverage.

They had sought a declaration that rule 165(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Uganda, 2021 is inconsistent with and in contravention of the aforementioned Articles of the Constitution and is to that extent null and void.

They had also sought an order directing Parliament and or the Parliamentary Commission to grant the petitioners access to any and all transcripts, audio, video and visual recordings of the proceedings of the Appointments Committee that were conducted by the 9th Parliament since the coming into force of the impugned rule.

“A permanent injunction barring Parliament from enforcing the impugned rule or similar rules and regulations which disproportionately conceal proceedings of the Appointments Committee and the respondent to pay the costs of the petition,” reads in part of the 2015 petition.

The petitioners had stated that by failing to ensure that proceedings of the Appointments Committee of Parliament are open to the public and the press and only held behind closed doors in exceptional circumstances permitted by the Constitution, the impugned rule is unacceptable and demonstrably unjustifiable in a free and democratic society and is, therefore, inconsistent with Article 43(2) (c) of the Constitution.