On February 3, 2023, the UJA’s top leadership, including Mr. Mathias Rukundo and Mr. Emmanuel Kirunda, faced criticism after disqualifying certain members from standing for elective positions in the association’s upcoming elections.
The decision to block some of the members from participating in the nomination and vetting stages ignited controversy, with many claiming that it was a blatant disregard for the nation’s laws. Journalists who felt aggrieved by the actions of the UJA leaders sought legal recourse to challenge what they saw as a violation of their rights.
“We are saying that one; UJA was going into an election without respecting its constitution, there was no election register, people who were presiding officers were the very ones competing in the election,” said George Musisi, a lawyer representing the applicants.
The journalists’ team presented a compelling set of prayers before the court, seeking an interim injunction to prevent the UJA officials from denying them the right to participate in the elections without a justifiable reason. Additionally, they requested an order of prohibition, restraining the UJA from enforcing their decision to disqualify them from the electoral process. Moreover, the journalists sought a declaration that the decision by Mr. Emmanuel Kirunda, as conveyed in an email dated February 3, 2023, was unjustified, given that the applicants had met all the requirements for candidacy.
The journalists also demanded a fair hearing, branding the actions of the UJA respondents as illegal, ultra vires, irrational, and unreasonable.
“They addressed it on a technical issue alone saying that UJA was incorporated as a limited company by a guarantee sometime in 1983 and the directors and subscribers have since been changed therefore it’s a public body, not a public, and this is not susceptible to judicial review,” Mr Musisi said.
Despite the compelling arguments presented in court, the case faced an unexpected twist. The High Court’s ruling stated that the UJA does not fall under the purview of a public body and does not derive its powers from any written law, except for its incorporation under the Companies Act. Consequently, the court dismissed the case, claiming that the UJA is legally registered as a private company, limited by guarantee, without share capital, and thus not subject to the same legal obligations as a public body.
This ruling has further fueled the controversy surrounding the UJA as the journalists who filed the case vehemently disagreed with the court’s decision, asserting that the UJA’s actions were unjust and that the association’s constitution and financial practices should be subject to scrutiny.
According to the journalists, the UJA has been collecting membership fees and organizing elections without a clear legal mandate to do so. They argue that the association is operating as a private company, making their actions questionable and potentially violating the trust of their members and the wider public.
Mr Lubowa said, “When it suits them and they choose to say that we are an association of over 300 members and collecting money and people subscribe but when we challenge that and put a test to that they say we are not a public association we are private and public, we are governed by a private company and we have only 5 members.”
He added, “In light of these serious allegations, the journalists have called upon state institutions, including the state house anti-corruption unit, the office of the Inspector General of Government (IGG), and the police criminal investigations department, to investigate the matter thoroughly. They contend that public funds have been invested in the UJA under the guise of improving journalists’ welfare, leading to questions about financial misconduct.”