CEHURD versus Attorney General and National Medical Stores
Decision by Dougalas Karekona Sinigiza. High court of Uganda. Judgement date: 05 July 2024
Brief of the Case
The case arose from a public interest claim filed by the Center for Health, Human Rights and Development (CEHURD) against the Attorney General and National Medical Stores of Uganda. CEHURD alleged that late delivery and distribution of essential medicines by the National Medical Stores violated several human rights under Uganda’s Bill of Rights, including the rights to life, health, human dignity, and protection from inhuman treatment. The case challenged the efficiency of Uganda’s health supply chain system and sought to establish a constitutional obligation for timely distribution of essential medicines.
Issues for Determination
- · Whether this court has the power to determination the application as presented?
- · Whether the respondents failed in fact to establish and maintain an efficient system for the distribution of essential medicines and health supplies?
- · If so, whether that omission (to establish better systems) infringed on the constitutionally guaranteed rights to life and health
- · Whether any reliefs sought can be granted.
Court’s Holding: In a nuanced ruling, Justice Dr. Douglas Karekona Singiza navigated the complex intersection of public health policy and constitutional rights. The court first affirmed its authority to review executive policies on essential medicine distribution, rejecting arguments based on the political question doctrine. Profoundly, the court recognized the right to access medicine as analogous to the fundamental rights to life and human dignity. This interpretation expanded the scope of justiciable rights in Uganda, potentially opening avenues for future health-related litigation.
The court then adopted the “reasonableness” test from South African constitutional jurisprudence to evaluate the state’s actions. In applying this test, Justice Singiza considered the government’s acknowledgment of medicine shortages and subsequent efforts to address the issue, including increased funding and engagement with Parliament. Ultimately, the court found that while challenges existed in medicine distribution, the state had taken “proactive, targeted, and measurable steps” to address these issues. The judge emphasized that it would be unreasonable to fault the government when it had actively engaged in problem-solving and resource allocation.
In a statement reflecting judicial restraint and pragmatism, Justice Singiza noted, “It is therefore not likely that any court can fault the respondent’s policy measures in the circumstances.” This approach demonstrated the court’s recognition of the complex realities facing resource-constrained governments while still affirming its role in upholding constitutional rights. The court thus dismissed the application but notably did so without ordering costs, potentially encouraging future public interest litigation in health rights.
