Q: 'The right to life and property in Uganda are not absolute.' Discuss this statement.

A: The statement "The right to life and property in Uganda are not absolute" can be discussed as follows, with reference to the 1995 Constitution of Uganda and relevant cases:

1. The right to life: Article 22(1) of the Constitution states that "No person shall be deprived of life intentionally except in execution of a sentence passed in a fair trial by a court of competent jurisdiction in respect of a criminal offence under the laws of Uganda and the conviction and sentence have been confirmed by the highest appellate court." This implies that the right to life can be limited in certain circumstances, such as through the death penalty after due process.

2. Limitation of rights: Article 43(1) of the Constitution provides that "In the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms prescribed in this Chapter, no person shall prejudice the fundamental or other human rights and freedoms of others or the public interest." This means that individual rights, including the right to life and property, can be limited for the sake of protecting the rights of others or in the interest of the public.

3. Public interest: The term "public interest" is not explicitly defined in the Constitution. However, it generally refers to the collective well-being and benefit of the public at large. This may include matters such as national security, public order, public health, and the economic well-being of the country.

4. Deprivation of property: Article 26(2) of the Constitution allows for the compulsory acquisition of property by the government for public use or in the interest of defense, public safety, public order, public morality, or public health. However, this can only be done under a law that requires prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation prior to the taking of possession or acquisition of the property.

5. Case reference: In the case of Attorney General v. Salvatori Abuki (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1998), the Supreme Court of Uganda held that the right to property under Article 26 of the Constitution is not absolute. The court stated that the government can deprive a person of their property as long as it is done in accordance with the law, is for a public purpose, and is subject to the prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation.

6. Proportionality: Any limitation on the rights to life and property must be proportionate to the aim sought to be achieved. This means that the limitation should not be more restrictive than necessary to achieve the legitimate public interest objective.

In conclusion, while the 1995 Constitution of Uganda recognizes the rights to life and property, these rights are not absolute. They can be limited by law in certain circumstances, such as in the interest of public security, order, health, or morality, or to protect the rights of others. However, any limitation must be proportionate and in accordance with the law. In the case of property deprivation, fair and adequate compensation must be paid promptly. The case of Attorney General v. Salvatori Abuki illustrates that the right to property can be constitutionally limited in Uganda.

A: Don't overlook Q & A forums that deal with laws of Uganda. This forum deals largely with U.S. laws and courts - many attorneys here are not familiar with overseas laws. Good luck