A. Nature and description of emergency COVID-19 measures taken

Uganda registered a first case of COVID-19 on 21 March 2020.  By this time, the country had already started implementing a range of protective measures and continued to do so with necessary modifications depending on the level of the threat posed by the pandemic. This section of the report highlights the nature and description of the emergence of COVID-19 measures that were adopted in Uganda.  The report then proceeds with Sections B and C where it briefly discusses the democracy and human rights issues associated with the said measures and their implementation. It ends with section D where concluding observations are made.

Substantive legislation

Regulation of COVID-19 was situated within Uganda’s legal and policy framework on disaster risk management including pandemics. This framework includes the constitution, the National Disaster Preparedness Policy as well as the Public Health Act as highlighted below.

1. The 1995 Constitution
   
   The primary law governing emergency responses to disasters in Uganda is the 1995 Constitution which, under Objective XXIII of the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy (NODPSP), requires that in the event of an outbreak of “any hazard or disaster arising out of natural calamities or any situation resulting either in the general displacement of people or general disruption of normal life” “the State shall institute an effective response machinery” for dealing with it. In extreme cases where a natural disaster threatens the country’s security or economic life, the Head of State in consultation with the Cabinet, may by proclamation, declare a state of emergency (Article 110[b]).
   
   The Constitution also specifically provides for the supportive role of the country’s defence forces which are required to cooperate with the civilian authorities in emergency situations and in cases of natural disasters (article 2019) in addition to the establishment of a Disaster Preparedness and Management Commission (article 249).
   
   
2.  The National Disaster Preparedness Policy, 2010
   
   The above Constitutional framework is buttressed by the National Disaster Preparedness Policy which was adopted in 2010. This Policy lays down the procedures for government’s response depending on the nature of the emergency.  In the case of pandemics, the Policy vests leadership of the development of appropriate preparedness and response plans with the Ministry of Health (Section 2.1.7). In executing its mandate, the Ministry of Health (MoH) is  supported by other institutions namely: the Office of the Prime Minister, specifically the Department of Relief, Disaster Preparedness and Management; the Ministry of International Affairs on issues of immigration and policy; the Ministry of Defence and specifically the Uganda Peoples Defence Forces (UPDF); the Ministry of Information and National Guidance; the Ministry of Local Government as well as District Local Governments[1].
   
   
3. The Public Health Act (Chapter 281)

   The principal law governing health matters in Uganda is the Public Health Act, Chapter 281 of the laws of Uganda. The Act among other things empowers the Minister of Health to issue a statutory order to: a) declare any disease as a notifiable disease; b) declare application of certain provisions of the Act to the notifiable disease; and c) define the extent of coverage in terms of space, of the application of identified provisions of the Act (section 10). Furthermore, the Minister is authorized to make legally binding rules on a range of issues including duties of medical practitioners, heads of families or other persons having the care of or in attendance of the sick, duties of local authorities among others (section 11). 

   Under section 27, the Minister is empowered to make rules for the containment of infectious diseases on matters such as: closure or limitation of activities of ordinarily mass institutions and events such as schools, places of worship and entertainment; establishment, maintenance and management of isolation and quarantine facilities including  hospitals, convalescent homes or other institutions for the accommodation or treatment of persons suffering from or who have recently suffered from any infectious disease; handling of dead bodies of patients of such diseases; preventive measures to be observed among others. 

   Furthermore, under section 36, the Minister is empowered to issue a statutory order for the purpose of preventing the introduction of an infectious disease in Uganda for instance by regulating, restricting or prohibiting entry into Uganda of persons of any specified class or description or from any specified country, locality or area. They could also condition entry into Uganda to medial examination, detention, quarantine, disinfection, vaccination, isolation or medical surveillance. 

• The response measures adopted in response to COVID-19
  In keeping with the National Disaster Preparedness Policy, the entire arsenal of measures adopted by Uganda in response to the COVID-19 pandemic were prescribed by the country’s Ministry of Health.  These measures were spelt out in the different Statutory Instruments issued by the Minister of Health in the exercise of her powers under sections 10, 27 and 36 of the Public Health Act (Chapter 281).
  
  In implementing these measures, the Ministry of Health was supported by other institutions provided for in the National Disaster Preparedness Policy, such as the UPDF whose involvement has been critiqued for being a domination, rather than supportive, leading to a conclusion that the country’s entire response to the COVID-19 pandemic was a militarized one.

Measures issued by the Ministry of health:

1. Public Health (Notification of COVID-19) Order, 2020 (Statutory Instrument 45 of 2020)
   
   The Public Health (Notification of COVID-19) Order, 2020 (Statutory Instrument 45 of 2020) was issued by the Minister of Health on 17 March 2020 with the purpose of declaring COVID-19 a notifiable disease under section 10 of the Public Health Act. Furthermore, the Order invoked the application of relevant provisions of the Public Health Act to COVID-19. These include Section 11 which mandates the Minister of Health to make appropriate rules in relation to a notifiable disease; Part IV on prevention and suppression of infectious diseases providing for among others powers of medical officers and local authorities, duties of persons infected or suspected to have been infected with a notifiable disease, owners of premises where such persons may have stayed as well as operators of vehicles. The Order also invoked section 36 of the Act which authorizes enforcement of precautions at Uganda’s borders. The Order would remain in force until its enforcement would be communicated by the Minister of health (para 3).
   
   

2. Public Health (Prevention of COVID-19) (Requirements and Conditions of Entry into Uganda) Order, 2020 (Statutory Instrument 46 of 2020)

   The Public Health (Prevention of COVID-19) (Requirements and conditions of Entry into Uganda) Order, 2020 (Statutory Instrument 46 of 2020) was issued by the Minister of Health on 13 March 2020 and entered into force on 17 March 2020. This Order introduced a requirement for the mandatory medical examination for COVID-19, of all persons arriving in Uganda, with or without permission to enter Uganda. In the exercise of their powers, medical officers were further authorized by this Order, to enter upon or board any vehicle, aircraft or vessel arriving in Uganda and examine any person onboard the vehicle, aircraft or vessel (para 3) in which case operators of such means of propulsion were mandated to give medical officers all the required assistance (para 7); isolate or quarantine COVID-19 patients; and to decontaminate or cause decontamination of vehicles, aircraft or vessels believed to be contaminated with COVID-19.

   Furthermore, this Order created three categories of arrivals in Uganda for purposes of determining who – even when results from the medical examination were negative –, should be: allowed to proceed to their destination with guidance on how to avoid getting infected (category 3 arrivals), be observed by a medical officer for at least 14 days (category 2 arrivals) or subjected to mandatory quarantine at a place designated by the Minister for at least 14 days (category 1 arrivals).  It also made it an offence punishable on conviction by a prison term of utmost three months, for any of the following acts or omissions: contravention of the Order, obstructing or hindering designated officers from performing their duties under the Order, withholding of any information required to be provided by law and the provision of false or misleading information to designated officers. A heavier punishment of utmost twelve months prison sentence was provided in respect of operators of vehicles, aircraft or vessels convicted of the same offences.
   
   
3. Public Health (Prohibition of Entry into Uganda) Order, 2020 (Statutory Instrument 53 of 2020)
   On 24 March 2020, the Minister of Health issued the Public Health (Prohibition of Entry into Uganda) Order, 2020 (Statutory Instrument 53 of 2020) with a back-dated commencement date of 21 March 2020.  The Order, which was made under section 36 of the Public Health Act, prohibited entry into Uganda by any person and the introduction into Uganda of any animal, article or thing at or through any of the border posts of Uganda except persons and animals, articles or things belonging to the United Nations Organization and any humanitarian organization destined for Uganda; and any vehicle, vessel or aircraft used for the conveyance of cargo into Uganda through any border post. These restrictions were to apply up to 23 April 2020.
   
   
4. Public Health (Prohibition of Entry into Uganda) (Amendment) Order, 2020 (Statutory Instrument 56 of 2020)
   This order was made on 9 April 2020 to introduce the following measures: a maximum limit of three persons allowed to occupy in a vehicle or vessel entering or transiting through Uganda and only crew members in case of an aircraft; the power of the medical officer to undertake a medical examination of all persons entering or transiting through Uganda by way of such means of propulsion; isolation and quarantining of such persons if suspected or confirmed to be suffering from COVID-19;  as well as disinfecting of vehicles, vessels or aircraft where there are clinical signs of contamination with COVID-19. The expiry date for the operation of the Order was also extended from 23 April 2020 to 5 May 2020.
   
   
5. Public Health (Prohibition of Entry into Uganda) (Amendment No. 2) Order, 2020 (Statutory Instrument 65 of 2020),
   This order was issued on 8 May 2020 with the effect of reducing the number of persons allowed to occupy a vehicle or vessel entering or transiting through Uganda from three, to two; and further extending the period for the continuance in force of the measures under the Principal Order from 5 May 2020 to 19 May 2020. This Order was also given an earlier commencement date of 6 May 2020.
   
   
6. Public Health (Prohibition of Entry into Uganda) (Amendment No. 3) Order, 2020 (Statutory Instrument 69 of 2020).
   On 22 May 2020, the Minister issued the above measure to extend the application of the measures under the Principal Order for a further three-week period running from 19 May 2020 to 9 June 2020. This order was also given an earlier commencement date of 20 May 2020.
   
   
7. Public Health (Control of COVID-19) Rules, 2020 (Statutory Instrument 52 of 2020)
   On 24 March 2020, the Minister of Health, acting under sections 11 and 27 of the Public Health Act, issued the Public Health (Control of COVID-19) Rules, 2020 (Statutory Instrument 52 of 2020). These Rules prescribed among others: the duty of local authorities and persons in control of premises and employers to notify and/or take to the medical officer or medical practitioner of COVID-19 patients under their jurisdiction; duty of medical officers of health and medical practitioners to refer to regional referral hospitals patients under their care who get to be diagnosed with COVID-19 as well as to notify, and ask to take precautions, family members or caregivers of deceased persons whose post-mortem examination reveals that they died of COVID-19; inspection by a medical officer of health and procedures for dealing with persons at premises where a COVID-19 patient was residing, with attendant powers to disinfect such premises; disposal of bodies of persons who succumb to COVID-19;  prohibition of spitting in public or in any place where the public has access; prohibition of and making it a criminal offence for a person to escape from isolation or quarantine facility; as well as handling of suspected carriers of COVID-19; regulation of activities and dealing with persons in, an area declared to be infected by COVID-19.
   Furthermore, the Rules provided for the following restrictions: closure of schools and institutions of higher learning; closure of bars and cinema halls; prohibition of prayers in places of worship and in open air; prohibition of marriage ceremonies, wedding parties, vigils and funerals except where the people gathered do not exceed ten; prohibition of public meetings including political rallies, conferences and cultural related meetings; prohibition of indoor and outdoor concerts and sports events; prohibition of trading in animals at places designated for that purpose by a local authority; prohibition of group exercising including group jogging in public places, highways, roads and other public spaces. These restrictions were initially meant to last up to the end of the first week of April. However, they were later extended as follows:
   
   - Pursuant to the Public Health (Control of COVID-19) (Amendment) Rules, 2020 (Statutory Instrument 57 of 2020) issued on 9 April 2020, the above restrictions were extended up to 5 May 2020.
   - Pursuant to the Public Health (Control of COVID-19) (Amendment No. 2) Rules, 2020 (Statutory Instrument 63 of 2020), the period was extended from 5 May 2020 to     19 May 2020: and
   -On 20 May 2020, the timeline was further extended to 9 June 2020 pursuant to the Public Health (Control of COVID-19) (Amendment No. 3) Rules, 2020 (Statutory Instrument 67 of 2020). This Amendment additionally introduced a requirement for schools and institutions to resume instruction of pupils and students, in their final year of studies, at all levels of learning, with effect from 4 June 2020. 
   
   
8. Public Health (Control of COVID-19) (No. 2) Rules, 2020 (Statutory Instrument 55 of 2020)
   When cases of COVID-19 increased, the Minister issued the Public Health (Control of COVID-19) (No. 2) Rules, 2020 (Statutory Instrument 55 of 2020) on 31 March 2020 to introduce more stringent measures by way of a nationwide lockdown effective 1 April 2020. The measures introduced included: imposition, throughout Uganda, of 19oo hours to 0630 hours curfew, as well as the prohibition of the selling of non-food items in markets, stores; prohibition on the sale of and closure of all other businesses (shops, stores, and premises/offices for provision of services) dealing in non-food items namely shopping malls, arcades, hardware shops, salons, gymnasiums and massage parlours, hotels and lodging houses, motor repair garages and workshops.  

   The instrument however exempted certain categories of trades, services and processes which would continue to operate. These included: businesses dealing in pharmaceuticals, agricultural chemicals, and seeds, as well as veterinary drugs and detergents; factories and construction sites that could comply with the requirement to accommodate their staff on the premises and ensure that these do not leave until the tentative date of 14 April 2020.

   Furthermore, a countrywide ban was imposed on driving on any road in Uganda, of any class of vehicle or engineering plant except those that would be exempted by the Minister for Works but in any case belonging to the following categories: medical services, including ambulances; police services; Uganda Peoples Defence Forces services; electricity services; water and sewerage services; fuel service stations; agricultural and veterinary services; telecommunications – including media, services; banking services; Uganda Revenue Authority services; Uganda national roads Authority services; Uganda Wildlife Authority services; security services; delivery services including deliveries to the places and premises that had been permitted to operate under the Rules and deliveries from those places to homes; cleaning services, including garbage collection services; funeral services; as well as selected Government services. Motor vehicles or engineering plants thereby authorized were also required to display a sticker issued by the country’s Ministry responsible for roads and transport. These were also exempted from the curfew restrictions where they were required to be used during its enforcement.  Also exempted from the requirement to have a sticker were cargo vehicles both operating or transiting through Uganda, if these would only operate up to 1400 hours.

   on 9 April 2020, the Public Health (Control of COVID-19) (No. 2) (Amendment) Rules, 2020 (Statutory Instrument 58 of 2020)  was issued specifically to amend Statutory Instrument 55 by extending the period for enforcement of the measures thereunder from 14 April 2020 to 5 May 2020.

   Notably, Statutory Instruments No. 52 and No. 55 of 2020 were also later revoked and replaced by the Public Health (Control of COVID-19) Rules, 2020 (Statutory Instrument 83 of 2020) which commenced on 23 June 2020. All aspects under the former instrument such as the curfew, control of public gatherings and meetings were retained. In addition, a number of new aspects were introduced namely: mandatory requirement for wearing of a face mask at all times outside of one’s residence; introduction of conditions for use of motor vehicle and motorcycles including allowing for a maximum of four persons including a driver in a motor car and a private omnibus, restricting to 50% the licensed carrying capacity of public service vehicles as well as allowing for operation of motorcycles but only for carriage of cargo and not beyond 1500 hours of the day; prohibition of hawking, street vending and selling of nonfood items in markets.  

   Statutory Instrument 83 was later amended by the Public Health (Control of COVID -19) (Amendment) Rules, 2020 (Statutory Instrument 94 of 2020) which came into force on 22 July 2020. The amendments included: imposing a curfew throughout Uganda, with effect from 22 July 2020, starting at 2100 hours on each day and end at 0530 hours on the following day which is still in force; the opening of some shops and stores located inside arcades, as would be determined by the government with effect from 22 July 2020; extension of closing time for operation of a motorcycle from the initial 1500 hours to 1800 hours and allowing carriage thereon, of only one passenger per trip.

   As of 1 May 2021, Uganda still had in force a curfew although the country has generally reopened in a number of areas including borders and airports; schools, most businesses etcetera. Places of worship were also reopened in September 2020 although they were required to operate on partial capacity. Calls to the government of Uganda to open up places of worship started around July 2020, especially after neighbouring Kenya allowed theirs to resume albeit in a limited fashion with strict adherence to standard operating procedures.

Guidelines by the Ministry of Health

In addition to the above Orders, the Ministry of Health issued a number of guidelines and tools to facilitate effective management of the pandemic, especially by the health sector workers. These are:

1. National Guidelines for Management of COVID-19, April 2020
   In April 2020, the MoH issued Guidelines to be followed by all health workers in public and private facilities at all levels of service delivery, for the management of the COVID-19 situation. These Guidelines were developed in acknowledgement of the novelty of the COVID-19 pandemic for which there was no definitive cure and vaccine at the time. The stated objectives of these guidelines were to: (i) provide guidance on clinical management of the COVID-19 cases in the context of existing infectious diseases including Nutritional and Psycho-social Support; (2) provide a standardized package and pathway that will support timely decision making for management of COVID-19 cases in the context of existing Infectious diseases; (3) detail the measures necessary to protect hospital staff, patients and visitors/caregivers; and (4) provide guidance on the management of other disease conditions and patient groups such as pregnant and breastfeeding women. The guidelines cover a range of issues related to COVID-19 case management including clinical signs and symptoms, case definition, screening and triage, personal protective equipment, admission and discharge protocols, relationship with caregivers among others.
   
   
2. National Guidelines for Quarantine in Context of COVID-19, April 2020
   The other set of guidelines issued by the MoH were the National Guidelines for Quarantine in Context of COVID-19. These guidelines provided for among others: the categories of persons to be quarantined; the minimum requirements for quarantine sites; duration of admission, the welfare of residents, medical procedures (Tests, care and monitoring) for a quarantined person; requirements for persons in-home quarantine as well as the obligations of communities and government towards such persons; protocols in relation to institutional quarantine; procedures for triggering and implementation of geographical quarantine; as well as special situations relating to pregnant women and children in quarantine.
   
   
3. Guidelines for the use of face masks
   As part of its efforts to ensure the safety of Ugandans, the MoH further issued guidelines on the use of face masks. These guidelines detailed the types of masks available on the Ugandan market and how they work, recommended type of masks for use by the community, notes on the effectiveness of alternative/locally made cloth masks, who should and when to wear a mask, handling/management and disposal of masks among others.
   
   
4. Standard Operating Procedures (SOPS) for Conducting Church Services in the COVID-19 Era
   In preparation for the re-opening of places of worship under the government of Uganda’s gradual relaxation of the lockdown measures it had adopted to contain Covid-19, the MoH issued Standard operating procedures for the conducting of services. This was intended to enable the ministers to run the places of worship in a safe manner that does not expose their following to Covid-19. The SOPS issued related to the management of entry and exit into the places of worship, sitting arrangement, sanitation protocols, the conduct of business during worship time, welfare and emergence response mechanisms among others. In addition, worship centres were required to: observe the presidential Directives and Ministry of Health Guidelines; incorporate Health Campaigns as part of announcements at the beginning of services and at the end; provide congregants with frequent updates from the government on the COVID 19 status in the country;  conduct multiple services and days of services due to the limited number (70) of people allowed per service session; suspend Sunday school services for children; observe curfew hour limits; provide for electronic and door/entrance offerings;  undertake registration at entry points and in addition allocate a seat number to each person registered; put up posters sensitizing the public about Covid-19; recruit security personnel to guide people on the sitting arrangements; ensure that the entry points are different from the exit point and that they are clearly marked; marking seats with numbers. Outstandingly, these guidelines also prohibited political campaigns in the church.
   
   Thus, the limited reopening of places of worship by the President on 21 September 2020 found an elaborate guiding framework within which they would operate. Notably, in November 2020, the number of persons allowed to attend mass gatherings, including religious functions and political rallies, was increased to 200.

Guidelines/Directives by other Ministries and government agencies

• Ministry of Public Service
  
  Guidelines on Preventive Measures against Corona Virus (COVID-19), Circular Letter No.3 of 2020, 25 March 2020
  These Guidelines were issued by the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Public Service to provide guidance on how the country’s public service would deliver services in light of the measures adopted in response to COVID-19.  The Circular among others directed that: all Ministries, Departments, Agencies and Local Governments to identify skeleton staff to remain on duty to ensure that essential services continue to be provided; the skeleton staff retained would have to avoid physical contact both with fellow staff and external clients; the Responsible Officers in Ministries, Departments, Agencies and Local Governments should provide contact details (phone numbers, emails, web-sites and other electronic media) to enable clients reach out to them virtually; in as far as possible, the MDAs and Local governments should use Electronic documents or correspondences; all first line employees retained at Government premises should be provided with protective kits such as gloves and nasal masks and a requirement for the staff to strictly observe regular hand washing/sanitization.
  
  Additional Guidelines to Implement Government Directives on the Management of Public Service Institutions During the national Quarantine Period, Circular Letter No. 4 of 2020, 31 March 2020
  On its part, Circular No. 4 was issued to guide the management of the provision of critical public services during the lockdown measures adopted by the government on March 30 with regard to the management of COVID-19. The circular listed the essential services which had to be provided by the public service within the overall directives of the Government. These included: health services and security; revenue collection; security/safety of assets of the MDA/LG; provision of network connectivity for both the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) and the Integrated Personnel and Payroll System (IPPS); and agencies dealing in Public utilities such as Water, Electricity and ICT Services. Additionally, the Circular ordered all MDAs to release four (4) vehicles together with their drivers in order to buffer the provision of critical health services.

• Contingency Strategies to Process Salary, Pension and Gratuity during the Lockdown to contain COVID-19, Circular Letter No.5 of 2020, 31 March 2020
  This Circular detailed how Public Officers, Pensioners and beneficiaries of deceased Public Officers would be paid their entitlements in the following month (April) while at the same time highlighting the envisaged risks and proposed mitigation measures in that regard. This was in acknowledgement of the fact that payment of entitlements to Public Servants is a critical service.
  
  
• Guidelines for Working Remotely/Telecommuting or Working from Home for the Uganda Public Service, Circular Letter No.6 of 2020, 7 April 2020.
  By these guidelines, the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Public Service notified Responsible officers in the different MDAs and local governments of among others: the adoption of telecommuting as one of the methods of work in the Public Service of Uganda; an instruction for such Officers to determine which staff would be required to work remotely; management of performance of staff under the virtual working environment; guidance on how to ensure the security of Government information over virtual platforms; adherence to client confidentiality and protection against exploitation; computation of compensation and work hours etcetera.
   
• Post-Lockdown Standard Operating Procedures for Office Operations in the Public Service of Uganda, Circular Letter No. 7 of 2020
  This Circular was issued on 5 June 2020 following the partial lifting of the lockdown specifically permitting private vehicles and Public Transport services to operate at 50% capacity, which meant that movement of Public Officers to and from their work premises was possible.  The Circular provided for the following guidance to the MDAs and Local governments’ operation: each MDA and LG was required to identify 30% of its workforce and especially those in the critical services sector, to start working physically while the other 70% would continue to work remotely as guided under Circular No.6 although some of them could be called upon to assist whenever there was a need;  the Responsible Officers were required to ensure decongestion of office premises and to limit physical interaction; ensuring that the health and safety of staff by among others enforcing the mandatory use of protective equipment, thermal scanning, sanitization at entrances to the premises among others; advising employees with cough, cold, flu and fever to stay at home and seeking medical treatment among others; as well as ensuring emergency responses to COVID-19 suspects. 
  
  
• Guidelines for Prevention of COVID-19 in Public places
  These Guidelines essentially brought to the attention of public servants the protective measures issued by the MoH in response to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and requiring them to take note of and implement them.

Ministry of Education and Sports

In September 2020, the Ministry of Education and Sports (MoES) issued Guidelines for Phased Reopening and Running of Education Institutions Under the Covid-19 Standard Operating Procedures. The purpose of these Guidelines was to help education institutions in the country to take the necessary steps in mitigation of the risks of transmission and spread of COVID-19 as education institutions reopened for candidate classes and final year students. The Guidelines covered a range of issues including the standard operating procedures to be followed by the schools on being opened; transportation of learners and staff; safe operations for education institutions; how to ensure effective utilization of school facilities; reorganization of school programmes; management of staff and capacity building; provision of facilities for implementation of the standard operating procedures among others. The guidelines were revised in February 2021 when other classes were allowed to commence with the school.

Judiciary of Uganda

• Circular on the Administrative and Contingency Measures to prevent and mitigate the Spread of COVID-19 by the Judiciary, 19 March 2020
  On 19 March 2020, the Chief Justice issued a Circular detailing administrative and Contingency measures to be taken by the judiciary in order to prevent and mitigate the spread of COVID-19. In this regard, the Circular suspended for a 32 days period starting 20 March 2020: all court hearings and appearances; all execution proceedings except those where attachment had already taken place; all conferences, workshops, meetings and training programmes whether local or international; all non-exceptional foreign travels for Judiciary staff; as well as presentation of prisoners and remandees except where it was possible to do so using a video link. The Circular however required Judicial Officers to continue being on duty and to complete any pending judgments on their desks during the suspension period. As regards cases at the submission stage, the courts were required to advise the respective counsel/parties to file written submissions.

  The Circular also provided for the issuance of Judgments and Rulings to the Parties online or via E-mail where possible.   Furthermore, the courts were required to continue handling certificates of urgency and taking pleas for serious cases and bail applications, in which case only the applicant and their lawyer or, as the case may be, sureties, would be allowed in court.  In the area of ensuring the health and safety of Officers, the Circular indicated that the Judiciary had already put in place sanitisers and other preventive measures and was in the process of procuring Digital Thermometers to deploy at various Courts premises.  These Guidelines were to be revised from time to time in accordance with the National Policy directives on COVID-19.

• Guidelines for online hearings in the Judiciary of Uganda
  Following the above circular, the Chief Justice issued the Guidelines for online hearings in the Judiciary of Uganda. According to an opinion authored by a Judicial Officer on the website of Uganda’s Justice, Law and Order Sector (JLOS) Secretariat, these Guidelines applied to the conducting of court business online including delivering of judgments and rulings; hearing of bail applications, mentions and interlocutory applications. It is further reported that the Guidelines conditioned participation/attendance to the online court processes to an invitation extended through a link provided by the Judiciary. 

B. Human rights-related issues arising from COVID-19 responses of Uganda

Elections

Covid-19 found Uganda in the final preparatory stages leading up to the holding of the 2020-21 national elections which are conducted every five years. The 2016-2021 electoral term was due to end in May 2021. Article 61(2) of the Constitution requires the Electoral Commission of Uganda to organize elections 120 days before the expiration of a running term.

Around May 2020, the country’s president hinted at a possibility of postponing the elections in view of the uncertainties around COVID-19, observing that it would be unreasonable to hold elections during a highly risky environment. However, this course was abandoned as the Electoral Commission soon (on 16 June 2020) issued a Revised Roadmap and guidelines for the holding of the 2020/21 elections purportedly in order to align the electoral activities with the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health, thereby averting the potential escalation of Covid-19 infections and fatalities due to unrestricted electoral activities. Most notable among the measures was the prohibition of open-air campaigns, instead requiring all aspiring candidates to conduct ‘scientific campaigns’ via media and online channels. However, this was later revised following the Ministry of health revision of restrictions on mass gatherings, first to a maximum of 70 and later to 200 persons per seating who had to fully comply with the standard operating procedures in force.

On the whole, the electoral activities happened in a complicated context clouded by violence and uncertainties. Candidates, especially opposition Presidential candidates, without strong established structures on the ground across the country struggled with how to organize to meet their electorate in the allotted number of 70 and later 200 on the one hand, as well as controlling masses who would wait for them along the streets in major towns where they had support bases on the other hand. They were often arrested; a highlight of this being the mid November 2020 arrest of the leading contender in the Presidential race, Robert Kyagulanyi Sentamu alias Bobiwine. Bobiwine’s arrest sparked nationwide protests resulting into fatalities as reported by media houses including the Daily Monitor, BBC, CNN and Aljazeera. This was the second time Bobiwine was being arrested as a presidential candidate, the first incident having been effected on the day of his nomination.

In its response on these developments, the Electoral Commission simply stressed that candidates had to observe the measures issued by the Ministry of Health, failing which they were inviting upon themselves the machinery of law enforcement agencies. There also appears to have been a distinction in the application of measures as it was observed that in some cases politicians belonging to the ruling party would often flout them without similar treatment by law enforcement agencies.

The level of violence led some religious clerics in Uganda to call for the government to postpone elections if it could not protect citizens’ lives and rights in the course of the campaigns. However, the President insisted that the government would not suspend the elections no matter the unfortunate incidents.

On 26 December 2020, the Electoral Commission suspended campaign meetings for all elective offices in 20 Districts/Cities namely: Jinja district, Jinja City, Kabale district, Kalungu district, Masaka district and Masaka City, Tororo district, Kampala City, Luwero district, Wakiso district, Buikwe district, Buvuma district, Mukono district, Kayunga district, Mbarara District and Mbarara City, Kabarole District, Fort Portal City, as well as Kasese and Kazo districts.  The suspension was reportedly due to the fact that the affected electoral areas had been “categorized by the Health Experts as high, sustained and diffuse transmission districts/areas.”  Candidates were instead advised “to restrict themselves to virtual campaigns – radios, televisions, social media, community-based Public Address Systems and other online platforms.”

Towards the actual polling, the government started restricting access to internet and use of social media platforms notwithstanding that these had been profiled as the major playfield for the country’s ‘scientific’ election. Specifically, on 12 January 2021, the Uganda Communications Commission (UCC) ordered all Internet Service Providers (ISPs) within Uganda to block access to internet-based social media platforms and online messaging applications including Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, Instagram, and others, in addition to the online mobile application stores, Google Play Store and App Store. The Government further ordered the blocking of access to over 100 Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), barring any attempts to circumvent its aforementioned internet censorship.  

On the eve of the 14 January 2021 presidential and parliamentary elections, the government further directed all Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in Uganda to block all access to the internet, thereby inducing a total internet shutdown that lasted five days, from the 13 of January, 2021 to the 18 of January, 2021.

It was projected that the above developments, for instance the ban on open air campaigns, could tilt the race in President Museveni’s favor, which would not be different from the trend in previous election cycles.

More substantively, there is criticism regarding the Electoral Commission’s adoption of guidelines without first consulting with key stakeholders and thereby failing to represent the different interests.

Executive

The Executive arm of Uganda’s government was very central in the responses to COVID-19. As indicated in Section A, the President was at the centre of the action at all stages. He issued several national addresses in which he sensitised Ugandans on the pandemic and the measures taken by the government in response for instance on 18 March 2020, 24 March 2020, 30 March 2020, 4 May 2020, 13 May 2020, 4 June 2020, 20 September 2020, and 29 November 2020.

The President also led the campaign to mobilise resources in terms of financial and material (eg vehicles, food, masks, sanitisers etc) donations needed to respond both to the health and other needs of Ugandans during the lockdown measures. A lot of donations came through following the President calls, both from private individuals, public servants, private companies, philanthropy organisations, Investors, associations, international organisations such as IGAD, corporations, foreign governments, diplomats among others. The president acknowledged all those who contributed during his addresses to the nation which were often made in the presence of members of his cabinet.

In addition to the President, the Office of the Prime Minister was involved especially in the coordination of the inter-ministerial responses. The Country’s Prime Minister led the National COVID-19 Donations Taskforce which was responsible for the receiving and management of donations.

Parliament

The Parliament of Uganda played a number of roles in the COVID-19 response machinery of the government of Uganda. This included highlighting, debating and adopting a report on the impact of COVID-19 on the Economy, nominating Members of Parliament to serve on the National Task Force on COVID-19 both to provide support and nationwide oversight. This was particularly important considering that the government had invested a significant amount of supplementary public resources.  It is reported that Parliament undertook several activities including assessing the awareness levels among local leaders and communities about COVID-19, capacities of health facilities, the impact of funds disbursed on the ground, the state and welfare of frontline medical workers among others. Additionally, over 200 MPs privately donated the ambulances they procured for their constituencies, to the Ministry of Health in order to boost its response capacity (as above).    

By way of solidarity, on 12 May 2020, Parliament passed a motion to honour the president for his exemplary leadership in the fight against the pandemic, in spite of minority resentments on the basis that it was still premature to award leadership in a war that was far from over.

Judiciary

At various stages of enforcement of the measures, the judiciary was requested to intervene in some of the issues arising from the government’s responses to COVID-19. Examples of these issues include the right to food, the right to liberty, the conduct of business by companies, rights of LGBTI persons among others. Below is a highlight of some of the cases where courts pronounced themselves.

• Right to food
  
  Centre for Food and Adequate Living Rights (CEFROHT) v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 75 of 2020)
  This case was decided by the High Court of Uganda on 4 June 2020. It was brought in an attempt to enforce the right to food and livelihood – guaranteed under the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy XXII and XXIII read together with Articles 8A, 20 and 45 of the constitution of the Republic of Uganda – which the Applicants claimed had been violated when the government adopted a range of restrictive measures relating to COVID-19 which included restricting movements, closure of workplaces. The case of the Applicant was that the said measures significantly limited the avenues through which Ugandans across the country could access food, yet the government did not offer any guidance on Ugandans’ access to and availability of food, including controlling food prices which had hiked during the lock down. At best, they noted, the Government had only indicated that it would distribute food to vulnerable communities in the capital city, Kampala, and Wakiso district.
  
  On their part, the Attorney General opposed the application, arguing first, that the government was duty-bound to heed to the call by the World Health Organisation to implement International health Regulations necessary to curb COVID-19. Secondly, it submitted that the Government, through the Office of the Prime Minister, had already embarked on plans to secure food items for distribution to the country’s most vulnerable people. Surprisingly, the Attorney General did not invoke the Political Question Doctrine which has traditionally been used as a bulwark against enforcement of economic social and cultural rights before Ugandan courts since they are not provided for in the substantive part of the Constitution.
  
  The Court dismissed the application finding among others: that the country has in place regulations to guide the whole process of distribution and quality of food distributed. Furthermore, it found that there was general guidance on access to food by all people during the lock down period as seen in the Presidential directive of 25 March allowing for operation of markets and businesses strictly for the selling of food items.   It further noted that while the country does not have price control laws, the government, through the Minister of Trade, Industry and Cooperatives, had proactively taken measures to regulate food prices in the form of a directive to local leaders across the country to ensure that there would be no hoarding of essential commodities, cautioning that traders who did not comply would have their licenses revoked. Although the court agreed with the Applicant that there are no food reserves in Uganda, it noted that the government had put in place other systems to bridge the gap such as food donations from international agencies such as the World food Programme.
  
  
• Right to Liberty
  
  Bukeni Ali & 48 Others v. AG, Miscellaneous Cause No. 10 of 2021
  The Applicants, in that case, were among the supporters of Presidential candidate Robert Kyagulanyi Sentamu (alias Bobiwine) who had been arrested and detained by security agencies over violation of the standard operating procedures set by the Ministry of Health. The offence in question was forming part of a crowd constituting more than 400 people who were not observing COVID-19 SOPs applicable to election campaigns. They had subsequently been granted bail by a Magistrate Court, but before their sureties could produce the bail money, security personnel arrested and detained them in army barracks and later handed them to a civilian prison whilst instituting against them new charges of unlawful possession of fire ammunition thereby subjecting them to the jurisdiction of the General Court Martial which declined their bail application.
  
  In approaching the High Court, they wanted to enforce their rights including the right to liberty. However, the court declined to grant their application observing that they were legally being tried by the General Court Martial which was competent to determine their innocence or otherwise.
  
  Notably, the Lead Applicant, in this case, Mr Bukeni Ali (alias Nubian Lee) is Mr Robert Kyagulanyi’s long time close friend and singing partner while the rest of the co-accused included his regular support staff.
  
  In the Matter of an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus AD Subuciendum by Kyagulanyi Sentamu and another v Attorney General and 2 others (Miscellaneous Cause-2021/16)
  This application was filed in January 2021 before the High Court on behalf of Presidential candidate Robert Kyagulanyi Sentamu (alias Bobiwine) and wife who had been subjected to unexplained confinement at their home by the security forces since 14 January 2021 when the Presidential elections had been held. During the said period, the applicants were allowed no access to anybody including members of their family, lawyers and medical personnel even as there had been no charges preferred against them.

  In opposing the application, the respondents relied on among others the affidavit of the Assistant Inspector General of Police who deposed that it was necessary to restrain Applicant who, in the course of his presidential campaigns had defied the COVID-19 guidelines which led to his arrest in November 2020 and the subsequent acts of violence and fatalities by his supporters. Furthermore, that the Applicant had also flouted the conditions of the bail he was granted after his arrest in November, and that it was necessary to restrain him in the aftermath of the elections a preventive measure intended to protect the life and property of Ugandans.

  The Court issued its ruling on 23 January 2021 in which it found that the restrictions imposed on the applicant were unlawful and ordered for their lifting and therefore ordered for the restoration of his personal liberty. The Applicant was also directed to comply with the SOPs in force in view of the virulent nature of COVID-19
  
  Lt. General Henry Tumukunde v. Uganda (Criminal Revision No. 26 of 2020)
  Although this case was not primarily concerned with the nature of the responses the government adopted to counter COVID-19, the court made an important point regarding the abuse of rights of persons under detention by using COVID-19 as an excuse to delay their justice. In this regard, the state attempted to have the Applicant’s bail application dismissed on the pretext that they had not yet completed investigations which were still underway when COVID-19 struck which attracted implementation of lock-down measures. The Judge, beyond holding that incompleteness of investigation does not constitute a bar to the grant bail considered, in any case, the fact that the relevant institutions which had to do the investigations were not affected by the COVID-19 lockdown measures, as they were categorized as essential service providers with all the requisite latitude to complete their work.
  
  Matters arising from business operations of companies
  

  The judiciary was also invited to intervene in matters concerning company businesses as exemplified by the case of In Re: Uganda Institute of Banking and Financial Services (Miscellaneous Cause No. 120 of 2020). The Applicant in this case, a Company limited by guarantee with approximately 870 members both corporate and individual totaling to over 5000 persons, sought for leave of court to conduct her Annual General Meeting for the year ended 31 December 2019 by electronic means on or before 20 July 2020 which is the period.

  The application was based on the impracticability of the company to hold the said event in the manner prescribed by her Constitution, i.e.; physically “at a place, time and date to be determined by the Board with a quorum of not less than 40%” of her membership yet the COVID-19 related measures in force at the time restricted mass gatherings. 

  The Court granted the application pursuant to Section 142 of the Companies Act 2012 which provides thus:

  “Where for any reason it is impracticable to call a meeting of a company in any manner in which meetings of that company may be called or conduct the meeting of the company in the manner prescribed by the articles of this Act, the court may of its own motion or on application of any director of the company or of any member of the company who would be entitled to vote at the meeting order a meeting of the company be called, held and conducted in the manner the court thinks fit.”

  This way, the court enabled the continuation of the Company’s business notwithstanding that there was, in place, circumstances which had not been envisaged by her Constitution.

Case concerning the arrest of LGBTI persons from a shelter
A group of 20 LGBTI persons were arrested and remanded at a prison in Eastern Uganda for almost two months over alleged violation of COVID-19 related measures. These had been found living together at an ‘overcrowded’ shelter for homeless LGBTI persons. It has also been reported that in late July 2020, this group filed a lawsuit before the Civil Division of the High Court in Kampala, seeking redress for their alleged torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, discrimination and violation of privacy. The Group is being represented by the Human Rights Awareness and Promotion Forum (HRAPF) endured a myriad of forms of violence while being held, ranging from flogging and scalding to denial of access to food, sanitary facilities and medication.

Transparency/ access to information

The COVID-19 response involved a lot of resources both monetary and material including state coffers and donations from various sources. Compared to the state allocated resources which are ordinarily subject to auditing and accountability, the non-states generated financial and material resources were at great risk of being preyed on by self-seeking individuals. 

Barely a month into the collection of donations, incidents started to emerge ranging from government officials inflating prices of essentials procured for distribution to vulnerable communities and concealment of donations by some members of district-level COVID-19 Task Forces.   There were also a report of Uganda’s diplomats to the Netherlands plotting to steal COVID funds by distributing it among themselves instead of giving it to stranded citizens.

In light of the relatively high incidence of corruption in Uganda, the results of a survey done by the country’s statistics body, the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS), indicated that as many as 74% of Ugandans believed that similarly “the COVID-19 funds and relief would not reach them because it will be stolen by ‘powerful people’ popularly christened as the ‘mafia’.

Abuse by law enforcement agents/exacerbation of authoritarian tendencies/power grabs

1. Abuse by law enforcement agents
   Uganda’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was characterised by elements of excesses which scholars such as Namwase and Nkuubi attribute to the militarization of the response. This approach reportedly not only side-lined civilian institutions, but also resulted in a violation of human rights, it having been characterised by acts of brutality against citizens in the form of ‘whipping, shooting and snooping’ during enforcement of night-time curfew,  and in order to chase people off the streets. Some of these events reportedly resulted in death in some cases.

   To avoid accountability, security officers targeted and brutalised journalists trying to cover their excesses. In some of the documented incidents, the culprits were tried and convicted and at one point, an apology was issued by army officials.

   Such developments, it is noted, go to confirm the continuing tendency of Uganda’s security forces to employ ‘excessive and entrenched use of force.’ Such acts condense positive aspects such as ‘balanced-civil military relations’ which was exemplified by the establishment of a COVID-19 task force which, although headed by the army, worked with and was intended to support the Ministry of health.

2. Exacerbation of authoritarian tendencies
   As the discussion in Section A shows, Uganda took a distinct approach of proceeding under the Public Health Act posturing a formal leadership of the response by the Ministry of Health. There was a mixture of views regarding whether or not this was a proper course of action in view of the implications of the measures adopted for human rights. At the polar end of the debate was a suggestion that the threat posed by COVID-19 and the appropriate measures that needed to be taken a warranted a declaration of a state of emergency. Karumba Busingye noted, for instance, that such a course of action would allow the state “greater latitude in responding to the public health challenges posed by COVID-19” seeing that some of the measures warranted suspension of some rights and liberties which could only be done constitutionally in keeping with Articles 46 and 110 of the Constitution.  Without declaring a state of emergency, noted Kabumba, the measures adopted by Uganda were “of doubtful legality.” His recommendation was that the government needed to “ground its response to the…crisis on a firm constitutional footing” by declaring a state of emergency. This was also believed to be a better way of ensuring heightened protection of human rights and accountability of authorities through the constitutional safeguards in place to regulate the state of emergency.

   In the heat of that debate, the country’s Attorney General was quoted informing Parliament that the decision to declare a state of emergency was reserved for ‘when it is absolutely necessary, which, at the time, it was not. He instead noted that the measures adopted by Uganda reflected an incremental approach intended to contain the pandemic whilst observing its trends in order to determine the necessity of resorting to declaring a state of emergency which, he noted, would pose serious consequences for human rights.

   The Advocates without borders (ASF) notes that the developments in Uganda at the time constituted a de facto state of emergency which was simply not declared in order to centre the COVID-19 response around the person of the President who worked without the necessary checks and balances by key institutions such as Parliament. In this regard, they flag the fact that “most of [the] measures [were] implemented on the sole basis of the President’s directives, even before being enacted in the Health Ministry’s Rules and Orders. For instance, the March 18^th President’s directive only became a ministerial rule, published in the official gazette, on March 24. Yet, the President’s public announcements are not legally binding.”   

   More traces of evidence of the personalization agenda are visible in the language used in the communications issued by the State House in the form of reports on the President’s role in fighting the pandemic. On 22 April, for instance, before the battle on COVID could objectively be said to have registered notable milestones, the President’s Publicist, published an article “COVID-19 Fight Confirms Museveni Leadership Credentials” which could possibly be perceived as a campaigning line for the Presidential elections which were due in January 2021. The trend was also visible in several of the nation addresses made by the President and telecast live on mainstream media platforms, at which he spent long hours briefing Ugandans about the steps taken and progress achieved in the ‘fight’ against COVID-19.

   The President would later emphasize (both explicitly and implicitly) the linkage of the successes in fighting the pandemic, to his visionary leadership and the charisma and professionalism of the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces (UPDF) under his command.  Notably, the distribution of essential supplies such as food reliefs was done by a unit of the UPDF known as the local defence supervised by commissioned officers with local government structures largely sidelined.

   Such an approach could potentially entrench authoritarianism in a country that is still an evolving democracy and largely performs poorly in objective indices such as the 2020 World Justice Project Rule of Law Index which ranks the country in 117 positions out of 128 countries globally.

C. Human rights-related issues arising from COVID-19 responses of states

Right to health

Travels to hospitals became difficult especially during the period from 30 March 2020 to 19 April 2020 when there was in force a blanket ban on public and private transport of any form except for the specified services. This resulted in a number of consequences including the death of at least seven pregnant mothers who failed to receive timely care due to the lack of means of transportation which was not helped by a general scarcity of services such as ambulances. Other groups affected include those who often seek regular medical care such as persons living with HIV, TB patients, sufferers from chronic illnesses, as well as people with medical emergencies.  

This prompted CSOs to petition the Prime Minister to have the blanket ban on transport revised in order to prevent future related deaths. On 19 April 2020, the President declared during an address to the nation, the removal of travel restrictions for pregnant women including the requirement to seek permission from the RDC.

Right to housing (including homelessness, informal settlements, slums, shacks) 

Landlords were requested not to chase away their tenants for defaulting on rent. However, this was merely a plea as opposed to a legal requirement and there was, therefore, no guarantee of protection. Furthermore, as the discussion on LGBTI persons’ rights below reveals, some of the vulnerable communities living in shelters for homeless persons were harassed; some arrested, detained and tortured allegedly for overcrowding contrary to the measures.

Right to water and sanitation

In February 2021, Sempewo et al published results from their research titled “The impact of COVID-19 on households’ water use in Uganda.” Among others, they highlight the problematic environment within which should be situated the discussion around the right to water during COVID-19, as follows:

In Uganda, clean water supply remains a challenge in rural areas (Naiga et al. 2015). This problem is a result of limited resources and skilled personnel, mismanagement and poor accountability of public funds (Calow et al. 2012). In urban areas, proper hygiene can be compromised in situations where households need to pay for the water they use (Naiga et al. 2015). This forces urban residents to restrict water use. Yet, this can facilitate the spread the viruses and bacteria (Burton et al. 2011).

Yet, as they rightly note, “(u)n stable water supply compromises the fight against contagious diseases.”

The work notes that the government took an initiative to ensure uninterrupted access to the water grid by Ugandans thereby connected, which took the form of a presidential directive,

…at the height of the COVID-19 outbreak, to the water body (National Water and Sewerage Corporation) not to carry out any water disconnections during the lockdown in order to avoid a failure to practice handwashing that might ensue as a result of limited water supply.

Although the customers would ultimately have to pay, this temporary measure evidenced a pragmatic approach to the realisation of the right to water in the utmost time of need. The findings in the above research indeed unsurprisingly indicated an increase in water use by households over the lockdown period. 

It remains to be seen whether or not Ugandans will translate this momentum into a foundational basis for demanding concrete policies leading to a better realisation of the right to water and sanitation.

Right to food/ nutrition and other socio-economic rights

The government set aside a budget to provide food relief to deserving Ugandans. In principle, priority was given to communities in urban and peri-urban locations whose means of livelihood had totally been locked down. The food reliefs included maize flour, beans, sugar and powdered milk necessary in a diet especially of children and pregnant/breastfeeding mothers. 

Furthermore, the government ensured not to interrupt the supply and distribution chain for food by leaving the markets open at all times of the lockdown. The Minister of Trade also sounded a warning against food traders not hoarding food in order to hike prices as this would compromise food security. 

Even then, there were concerns relating to the quality of the food distributed, some communities were not receiving food or doing so much later than their immediate neighbourhoods.

Economic impact/ impact small business/ employment social security networks

The economic and social impact of COVID-19 in Uganda has been highlighted by reports including the World Bank, UNDP, UNICEF, ACODE, DEVINIT and ABI. During COVID-19, the country’s economy plummeted from a 6.8% growth rate in 2019 to 2.9% in 2020. Notably, COVID struck when the country was still recovering from shortfalls in her revenues and an invasion of locusts which had posed unforeseen budgetary expenditures.  This is attributed to the measures which led to the closure of business operations and disruption in supply and distribution chains due to the closure of borders and the lockdown.

In the area of employment, the four months lockdown led to the collapse of many businesses and lay off of workers while in some cases those who were retained had their payments either cut down or totally suspended. A number of businesses had running loans by the lockdown, on which interest accumulated beyond their capacity to pay, which resulted in attachment of their properties and liquidation of some.

Although the lockdown was later relaxed and some business operations allowed to resume, many still had to operate on half capacity meaning that a significant proportion of the pre-Covid staff population remained redundant moreover without alternative means of livelihood. In the case of factories, this also meant a reduction in production levels as the firms were operating under half capacity.

Relatedly, lockdown affected the capital stock of many small scale businesses as proprietors resorted to the capital stock and savings on livelihood in the form of buying food and medical care, paying rent for accommodation and bailing out indisposed relatives and friends. This left them with no capital to resume operations post the lockdown.

Furthermore, a number of enterprises such as media that remained standing for a while are also starting to cut down on their staff due to a plummeting of business which affects their turnovers and therefore cannot sustain the pre-covid employee population. This is compounded by a generally poor social security landscape in Uganda characterised by a limited range of benefits that do not cover situations of redundancy and the fact that most of the people are unemployed or informally engaged without social security or any form of insurance including for health.

Women (including domestic violence)

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic response measures on women in Uganda took different forms. For instance, the lockdown on public and private transport limited access by pregnant mothers to relevant health services as a result of which some women died whilst trying to reach facilities on foot. There are also reports of the beating of women found along the streets where they had gone to sell merchandise such as fruits in baskets in order to fend for their families.  In northern Uganda, women caught outside their homesteads during curfew hours were subjected to worse forms of degrading treatment including beating, undressing and requiring them to roll on the muddy ground. The president later ordered a seizure of such violence.

Domestic violence against women also skyrocketed in Uganda due to the prolonged lockdown amidst poverty and the associated stress and fights in homes. This was not helped by a restricted environment for access to justice following the Chief Justice’s  Circular on the Administrative and Contingency Measures to prevent and mitigate the Spread of COVID-19 by the Judiciary. It was observed that by emphasizing consideration of only urgent cases, which is interpreted to have meant criminal cases such as murder, aggravated robbery and domestic violence, the Judiciary effectively suspended consideration of “legal issues predominantly reported by women” such as family and children related matters.

The other concern in this regard is that the digital transition was oblivious to the digital gender gap which was as limiting as to the “physical restrictions on movement [which] made it difficult for women to access courts and lawyers for legal help”.

Children (including education)

While the threats surrounding COVID-19 and attendant measures indeed affected everyone, the impact was no doubt overwhelming for children. The experiences were multifaceted. Examples in this regard include anxiety generated by the fear of contracting COVID-19; the inconvenience of a phenomenally long break from school for over a year without advancing to another level of education, exposure to physical and other forms of abuse including of a sexual nature due to the confinement and at times idleness, trauma especially when parents had misunderstandings some of which may have emanated from the lack of means to meet the needs of families, among others.  

In an attempt to facilitate continuity of learning under the newer circumstances imposed by COVID-19, the Ministry of Education and Sports (MoES) developed a Preparedness and Response Plan (PRP) of the country’s education Sector to COVID-19 focusing on three core areas namely: continuity of learning, the learning agenda and school after the lockdown. A part of this program, the MoES published self-study materials for all levels of education from lower primary classes to Advanced Level Secondary. All study materials were provided free of charge and the public was advised accordingly. In the case of lower primary classes, the Ministry prepared radio scripts of study materials to guide the study programmes of young people across the country.

Importantly, these materials were translated into the several languages spoken by most of the tribal groupings across the country and were published on the Ministry’s website for ease of access by the teachers: Luganda, Lusoga, Lhukonzo, Lugbarati, Runyankore-Rukiga, Runyoro-Rutooro, Ateeso, Aringati and Maditi. Additionally, the national broadcaster issued a National Education Program Time Table which was to be followed in the provision of remote learning.  Delivery of these training programmes was to follow a framework designed by the MoES. Additionally, the Ministry arranged for issuance of study materials to learners across the country through the District Resident Commissioners. The materials were accompanied by a Parents’ Guide to supporting Children’s learning at home with a view to facilitating learning in an environment without teachers and in acknowledgement of the limitations in access to platforms for virtual education by professional teachers. 

So far, there are no studies conducted to assess how impactful these measures were especially in view of concerns around the accessibility of the virtually provided education to learners from extremely poor localities with no or limited access to the major medium of transmission of the education namely mainstream and social media platforms.

Persons with disabilities 

Just as is usually the case with many of society’s challenges, the COVID-19 pandemic definitely had a disproportionate impact on persons with disabilities due to among others reasons, shortfalls in the environment for the articulation of their concerns. 

Notably, Uganda an approximated 12% population of persons with disabilities. However, most of the interventions appeared to be lacking in a comprehensive disability-friendly approach. For instance, although the Ministry of Health tried to ensure the availability of sign language translation during its Press Conferences, a similar approach was lacking for the Presidential addresses to the nation which have been postured as having been central in popularising the response measures. This means that the deaf could hardly receive timely information. It is also likely that most of the communication materials circulated in an attempt to sensitise the public about COVID-19 were not disability sensitive.

These and more areas in relation to the experience of persons with disabilities in Uganda during COVID-19 warrant an empirical inquiry in order to guide responses to similar occurrences in the future.

LGBTI persons 

It has been noted that Uganda’s lockdown measures were in some instances used as a target to emit violence against LGBTI persons with as many as 20 of them being remanded for nearly two months over alleged violation of the said measures during their residence at a shelter provided by a local NGO. 

Reports from HRW, UNAIDS and Mail & Guardian indicate that the dire human rights situation of LGBTI persons in Uganda during the COVID-19 pandemic has generally been interpreted as a continuation of the homophobia against this group years before COVID-19 struck. These trends are not any different from the general approach across Africa.

Migrants

The limitations which came with the lock-down measures severely impacted the enjoyment of rights and rights-related goods and services for the over 1.4 migrant population in the country. Compared to citizens who may have had some form of social support system to resort to, migrants had to struggle harder in the event of extreme difficulties such as unemployment due to COVID-19 lockdown on activities, food shortages and mental health challenges driven by anxiety and an extended period of solitude. This was not helped by the declines in the resource envelope of providers of food and financial needs to refugees such as the World Food Programme which significantly cut down on its package for refugees in Uganda. In addition to significantly affecting the livelihoods of refugees, the resultant food shortages were also projected to worsen the tension between the refugees and nationals in competition for scarce resources.  This is not to downplay the efforts of agencies such as the UNHCHR and civil society organisations in trying to try and mitigate the negative impact of COVID-19 on the welfare of migrants.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the need to protect the country from the importation of COVID-19 cases led to a ban on entry into the country across all borders save for a few exempted categories indicated in Part A of this report. The Office of the Prime Minister expressly suspended the reception of new refugees into the country. 

Persons deprived of their liberty

Many persons were arrested and detained, both over alleged violation of the measures put in place to control COVID-19, as well as for other crimes.  One of the key Constitutional guarantees required for suspects under such circumstances is access to legal advice. However, just as was the trend in other East African countries, in Uganda, lawyers were initially excluded from the list of essential service providers who would be able to continue their operations during the continuance in force of some of the relatively tight lockdown measures for instance restrictions on movement and curfew.  This meant that at some point lawyers would not be able to facilitate access to justice by persons deprived of their liberty as their constitutional right to fair hearing requires timely access to legal counsel. Notably, after a long period of lobbying, the legal profession was allocated a paltry 30 lawyers allowed to provide legal services on any one day which was regarded as an insult to a profession with a membership of over 3500 Advocates.

Furthermore, the suspension of business by the courts and the cross-cutting lockdown measures reportedly hit hardest the accused persons on remand given that physical court appearances were not easy to secure. It has been noted that even where the courts would be willing to hear the matters, this was at times not possible in light of the precautionary measures taken by other chain institutions such as the Prisons Service and the Police.

Right to life and bodily security

As noted in earlier sections of this report, Uganda’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was characterised by incidents of heavy-handedness in the form of acts of brutality against citizens in the form of ‘whipping, shooting and snooping’ during enforcement of nighttime curfew,  and in order to chase people off the streets. Some of these events reportedly resulted in death in some cases. It was suggested that the level of impunity and lethal force with which security forces acted in purported enforcement of COVID-19 measures might have been deadlier than the pandemic itself.

Freedom of assembly

The fact that COVID-19 was scientifically believed to thrive in congested environments would ordinarily make claims to the freedom of assembly appear to be unreasonable if not reckless. Yet, the awareness that repressive regimes could use the necessity created by the pandemic to unreasonably impede enjoyment of this right makes it necessary to reflect on how it manifested in the case of Uganda.  Notably, when the threat from COVID-19 appeared to have escalated, Uganda adopted lockdown measures including a ban on what would ordinarily have been micro gatherings. This development altered the socialization approach of what is traditionally a highly communal and physical Ugandan community. Mostly affected were the religious unions, political activities as well as social functions.

Notably, and as indicated in Section B, there are suggestions that over and above the threat posed by the pandemic, the restrictions on especially political activities were also an opportunity for the Ugandan regime to deny opposition figures the campaign momentum often generated through mass events. The paranoia against political activity is also visible in the explicit requirement of religious leaders not to entertain any political campaigns in their places of worship once opened.

Freedom of movement

As highlighted in Section A, Uganda imposed – and still enforces a 9:00 pm to 5:00 am night curfew in addition to restricting operators of public transport to load 50% of their carrying capacity. This both affects peoples’ movement in terms of the increased cost of travel as well as limited flexibility of long-distance travellers who have to ensure arrival to their respective destinations within the allowable time period for the travels. At the height of the lockdown measures, the movement was practically impossible both for public and private travellers. Those who had emergencies initially had to go through an uncertain process of processing a travel permit from a District representative of the President resulting in significant delays and frustration.

Freedom of expression/ access to information/ privacy/digital rights 

The MoH was pragmatic and comprehensive in providing relevant information to the public in relation to COVID-19 including on issues such as SOPs, updates on case incidents among others in addition to the regular national addresses by the President in the company of relevant officials to update the nation and respond to questions/concerns from the public in relation to the measures.

However, there was a very restrictive environment as regards freedom of expression especially of views critical of the country’s response to COVID-19.  For instance, people who published false information on COVID-19 were arrested and detained in spite of the presence and wide dissemination of overwhelming scientific evidence on the pandemic which could easily have diluted their claims. Most of these publications were done on digital platforms such as social media which appear to have been closely policed.

 D. Summary (analysis, trends)

The foregoing highlights reveal that although COVID-19 in many ways manifested as a novel development, Uganda’s past experiences in dealing with almost comparable disasters and epidemics such as Cholera and Ebora seem to have prepared her enough to put up a relatively strong response. For instance, the country already had in place a legal and policy framework that informed most of the responses without much panic, and there was room left for the adoption of tougher measures should the situation have warranted it.  Evidence of the success of these efforts is contained in the official statistics from the country’s Ministry of Health.

As of 1 May 2021, the date when this report was concluded, the Country’s total number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 was 41,715 which is 4% of the 1,008,838 tested individuals. The total number of deaths from the disease thus far was 341 which is 0.2 points shy of 1% of the total cases.  It is thus no wonder that the country’s response to COVID-19 has generally been well received, for instance being characterized by the American Public Health Association as a Role Model for Pandemic Containment in Africa.

At the centre of Uganda’s COVID-19 response was the President, Yoweri Museveni.  Although the generally declining scores on a democracy front affect his abilities, the country’s president has been able to garner some positive remarks for taking decisive action and providing leadership to what is thus far a successful fight against the pandemic. The Washington Post for instance commended President Museveni for having been:

(P)articularly eloquent and detail-oriented explaining what the virus was, how it was transmitted and who was at risk, before laying out a plan to systematically close schools, churches and borders, to begin social distancing, and to put a hold on cross-border air and ground travel for passengers, while maintaining the regional cargo links that are especially important for landlocked South Sudan.

The significance of such an approach cannot be overemphasized in view of the potential heavy burden poor management of COVID-19 responses would have posed for the country’s already constrained health care system.

There are also other gains that were registered from the country’s COVID-19 responses for instance in building momentum for advocacy around economic social and cultural rights. As highlighted in the report, the state took some tangible – even if inadequate and in some cases poorly uncoordinated – steps to facilitate the realisation of for instance the rights to water and food of the most marginalised. These scores should be consolidated as evidence in future advocacy campaigns aimed at having the state provide relevant goods and services necessary for the realisation of those rights by vulnerable groups.

Yet, the responses were not short of political connotations. For instance, it appears that the COVID-19 pandemic provided the ruling regime in Uganda a favourable environment to restrict political competition in the recently concluded national elections. Enforcement of the COVID-19 containment measures enabled the regime in power to limit political competition in an easily justifiable way. Where such approaches involved a violation of fundamental freedoms and rights of citizens, the courts laboured to make inroads by enforcing the rights of some of the victims of politically motivated charges. Some of the victims of rights violations were freed, while in some cases the state unceremoniously negated the scores by for instance tramping charges of unlawful possession of firearms on suspects which invited fresh trials of civilians before courts-martial.

It also goes without saying that underneath the aura of the President’s acclaimed leadership to the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic appears to have been running a current of self-interest.  As noted, COVID-19 struck when Uganda was in final preparation for the national elections including for the office of President in which Mr Museveni has since been declared the winner. This fact provides a useful lens for understanding his choice to dominate the response, and the adoption of language presenting him as the centre piece of the response, rather than the institutions.

Furthermore, the responses mirror a growing trend in Uganda, of entrenchment of either the presidency or the military in all key sectors of governance. For instance, most of the communications made by officials in the different MDAs consistently referred to the response measures adopted as “directives issued by ‘His Excellency The President’ of the Republic of Uganda” yet the legal force of these actually flew from statutory instruments issued by the Minister of Health.

Thus, while the success achieved in containing the pandemic thus far is notable and commendable, there remain significant concerns in relation to strengthening institutions in order for them to work without having to be blessed by a leader. How and when Ugandans will achieve that still remains subject to discussion.