You cannot fault govt on delayed supply of medical supplies, court rules
What you need to know:
- Center for Health, Human Rights and Development (CEHURD) had complained to the court that the late delivery and distribution of essential medicines by the NMS violates several human rights under the Bill of Rights.
The court has dismissed a case in which the health rights body was challenging the National Medical Stores (NMS) over the late delivery and distribution of medical and health supplies across the country.
Center for Health, Human Rights and Development (CEHURD) had complained to the court that the late delivery and distribution of essential medicines by the NMS violates several human rights under the Bill of Rights.
The health rights activists had accused the NMS of a breach of duty to ensure the timely distribution of essential medicines and medical supplies.
However, High Court Judge Dr Douglas Singiza ruled that the state cannot be faulted, because it took proactive, targeted, and measurable steps in performing its obligations under both the Constitution and international human rights instruments.
"...notwithstanding the operational and logistical glitches that were experienced at the time, there is no evidence in the motion before me on which to make a finding of a breach of state promises in regard to access to medical services in Uganda," the judge ruled last Friday.
According to the court, whereas the applicant’s main complaint indeed concerns the respondents’ failure to establish an efficient system for the distribution of essential medicines and health supplies, reliance is nonetheless placed on articles 22 and 24 of the Constitution to sustain that very complaint.
Justice Singiza agreed with the objection to the cause of the case raised by the Attorney General saying there is no clearly stated right under the Constitution called access to essential medicines and health supplies that could have been violated.
"The debate on whether social and economic rights such as access to medical services are justiciable in Uganda, and indeed in many other African countries, has long ended. Arguably, the pertinent questions now revolve around the determination of how they may be enforced in the context of the neatly provided state obligation," the judge added.
He reasoned that it is always safer than not to enforce this right with due regard given to its historical context, particularly in developing countries where difficult choices have to be made between competing demands and priorities.
The complaint was premised on a supposed omission to ensure the timely distribution of essential medicines and health supplies.
"Although the alleged omission is a breach of a statutory mandate in terms of Section 4 of the NMSA, no grievance has been proven to warrant the application of Article 50 of the Constitution on account of the alleged infringement of the rights to life, health, human dignity, and protection from inhuman and degrading treatment, notwithstanding the usual welfare promises of the state. Thus, the application is faulty because it does not disclose any cause of action. Here, the argument is that, in the absence of clearly stated rights that have been violated," reads the court records.
