The Constitution Court has quashed sections of the Anti-Pornography Act for inconsistence and contravention of the constitution of Uganda.
In 2014, human rights advocates and organisations petitioned constitution court seeking for quashing of various sections of section two of the Ant Pornography Act 2014 which defines and creates the offence of pornography is overly broad inconsistent with and contravenes the principal of legality.
The petitioners include; Center for Domestic Violence and Prevention, Women’s Organisation Network for Human Rights Advocacy, Professor Sylvia Tamale, Sarah Kihika, Lillian Drabo, Strategic Initiative for Women in Horn of Africa, Uganda Health and Science Press Association, Human rights network for journalist- Uganda and Lina Zedriga.
They contended that section 11 (1) and 15 of the Anti-pornography Act are inconsistent with article 23, 26 and 27 of the constitution. They wanted section 2, 11, 13 and 15 of the Act declared null and void for inconsistency with the constitution.
The Anti-Pornography Act (“APA”) bans creation, publication, distribution, and abetting of pornography and child pornography. It also creates a nine-member council to handle pornography issues, including public education, maintaining a registry of offenders, and destruction of seized materials.
A panel of judges which included; justices Frederick Egonda-Ntende, Elizabeth Musoke, Cheborion Barishaki, Muzamiru Kibeedi and Irene Mulyagonja quashed section 2, 13 of the Anti-pornography Act noting that they are inconsistent with Article 2 (1) and (2), 28(12) and 29 (1) of the constitution of Uganda.
In a judgment delivered by justice Egonda-Ntende, the judges unanimously said Anti-Pornography Act does not provide what amounts to indecent show and that the threshold over which an action can be measured to determine whether it falls within the ambit of indecent show.
“What harm would result to society, if publication, exhibition or other representation of images of sexual parts of the human body or sexual activities primarily for sexual excitement, is not prohibited? None has been put forward by the respondent (Attorney General) except from the bar where it is intimated implicitly as harm to women and children,” he said
“Section 11, (1) and 15 of the Anti-pornography Act are inconsistent with Article 23, 26, and 27 of the constitution. Section 2, 11, 13 and 15 of the Act are here by declared null and void for inconsistence with the constitution,” reads in part of the ruling.
