THE REPUBLIC

IN THE CHIEF MAGISTRATES

OF UGANDA

COURT OF MENGO AT MEN GO

MISC. CAUSE NO. 73 OF 2014

IN THE MATTER OF THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION
AN APPLICATION

ACT 2005

FOR ACCESS TO INFORMATION

EDWARD RONALD SEKYEW A

t/a HUB FOR INVESTIGATIVE

MEDIA :::::::::::::::::::::::APPLICANT
VERSUS

NATIONAL FORESTRY

AUTHORITY

::::::::::::::::::::::

RESPONDENT

RULING
BEFORE HIS WORSHIP BONIFACE WAMALA CHIEF MAGISTRATE
This was an application

by Notice of Motion under Article 41 of the

Constitution; SSe 16 (3) (c), 18,37,41 and 42 of the Access to Information Act
2005; and O. 52 rr. 1 & 2 of the CPR seeking the following reliefs:1. A declaration that the Executive Director of the Respondent wrongly
refused the Applicant's

request for access to information under the

Access to Information Act 2005 (hereinafter "the Act").

2. An order directing the Executive Director of the Respondent to grant the
Applicant access to any and all records or information that the Applicant
requested for under the Act.
3. An order of injunction directing the Executive Director of the Respondent
to refrain from concealing information pertaining directly or indirectly to
the subject matter of the Applicant's request.
4. An order awarding the Applicant the costs of the suit.

The grounds of the application are thata) The Applicant

is a Ugandan

Investigative

Journalist,

founder and

Executive Director of an agency called Hub for Investigative Media that

promotes good governance and accountability in the country.
b) On the 2nd September 2013, the Applicant lodged with the Executive
director of the Respondent a request for access to information regarding
the procurement of the necessary equipment for prohibiting, control and
management of fires in the 506 (five hundred and six) Central Forest
Reserves in the country.
c) The Executive Director of the Respondent failed and/or refused to give a
decision on the Applicant's request within the statutory period of 21 days
after receipt of the request form.
d) It is wrong, improper and indeed out of keeping with the Act for the
Executive

Director

of the Respondent

to conceal the information

requested for.
e) The information requested for is liable to mandatory disclosure in public
interest because:
(i)

The Respondent is a public body;

(ii)

The public interest in its disclosure is greater than any harm that
may be contemplated by the Respondent for the time being;

(iii)

Its disclosure would reveal evidence of substantial wrong doing

such as failure to comply with established procurement procedures,
causing financial loss to a public body, abuse of office, dereliction
of duty, negligence, breach of trust, etc.; and

(iv)

Its disclosure would reveal evidence of environmental risk arising

out of, related to or otherwise connected with mismanagement of
forests in Uganda.
2

f) By refusing to divulge the information requested for, the executive

Director of the Respondent has thereby prevented the Applicant from

empowering the public to effectively become aware of and scrutinise the
decisions of a public body.
g) In the interest of promoting an effective, efficient, transparent and
accountable government, it is just and equitable that this Honourable
Court allows this application and grants the declaration and orders sought
by the Applicant.

The application was supported by an affidavit sworn by Edward Ronald

Sekyewa, the Applicant. An affidavit in reply was deponed to by Mugisa
Michael, the Executive Director of the Respondent. The Applicant deponed to
an affidavit in rejoinder. At the hearing the Applicant was represented by Mr.
Isaac Ssemakadde while the Respondent by Mr. Kwesiga Joseph. Both
Counsel agreed to make and file written submissions, which they did.

Both Counsel agreed to two issues for determination by the Court, namely:1. Whether the Respondent was lawfully justified to refuse the request for
access to the information sought by the Applicant.
2. Remedies.
With regard to the first issue, Counsel for the Applicant raised a number of
grounds and prayed that the issue be answered in the negative. I will handle the
grounds in the way Counsel raised them.

Counsel for the Applicant contended that contrary to the averment of the
Respondent's Executive Director in his affidavit in reply, the law does not
require the Applicant to furnish the Respondent with a reason for his request for
3

the information. Counsel relied on S. 6(a) of the Access to Information Act

(ATI Act) and S. 91(1) of the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act (NFPT
Act).
In reply, it was argued by Counsel for the Respondent that the Applicant being a
private business entity ought to have disclosed the reason and purpose for which
the information was required since there was a possibility of jeopardising public
interest in case the information was misused by the Applicant.

S. 6 of the ATI Act provides:"A person's right of access is, subject to this Act, not affected by (a)Any reason the person gives for requesting access; or
(b) The information officer's belief as to what the person's reasons arefor
requesting access."

The above provision is quite clear and unequivocal. The reason for which the
information is required and the belief of the officer supposed to provide the
information as to purpose for which the information is required are irrelevant
considerations. This therefore means that whether the Applicant has given any
specific reasons or not, the application has to be considered on its merit. This, in
my view, is the reason the "Request Form" under Schedule 2 of the Act does
not require a statement of such reasons. It was clearly the purpose of the legal
drafters of the Act that such is not a relevant requirement.

The situation could be different where a particular law has such a requirement
embedded in it. In the instant case, S. 91(1) of the NFTP Act is to the contrary.
It confirms the right of every citizen to access any information relating to the

implementation of the Act, and the exception set out therein does not include
the kind of information requested for in the instant case.
4

Even if the Respondent sought to rely on the general and superior provisions of
the Constitution, the same are still in favour of the applicant. Article 41(1)

thereof provides "Every citizen has a right of access to information in the possession of the
State or any other organ or agency of the State except where the release of the
information is likely to prejudice the security or sovereignty of the State or
interfere with the right to the privacy of any other person".

There is no allegation herein, let alone a possibility, that release of the

information required may be prejudicial to the security or sovereignty of the
state or the privacy of any person. Both Counsel agreed to the definition of what
constitutes public interest, and I still don't see how release of the required
information would be prejudicial to the public interest. The contention by the
Respondent therefore fails and the Applicant has justified to the Court on this
ground that he was entitled to consideration of his application irrespective of
whether he stated a reason ornot.

The second ground relied upon by the Applicant was that the information
requested for was liable to mandatory disclosure in public interest, and Counsel
put up three grounds to support this assertion by the Applicant, namely:
a) That the Public interest in disclosure of the information requested for is
greater than any harm that may be contemplated by the Respondent for
the time being;
b) That disclosure of the information requested for might reveal evidence of
substantial wrongdoing by the Respondent and its officials such as failure
to comply with established procurement procedures, causing financial
loss to a public body, abuse of office, among others; and
5

c) That disclosure of the information requested for might reveal evidence of

environmental risk arising out of, related to, or otherwise connected with
mismanagement of forests in Uganda,

In reply, it was submitted for the Respondent that the provisions of S. 6(b) of

the ATI Act and S. 91(1) of the NFTP Act are not mandatory but subjective to
the discretion of the officer in possession of the information on protection of
public interest. The Respondent however didn't show to the satisfaction of the
Court as to how public interest would be prejudiced by the release of the
information requested for.

It was further argued for the Respondent that the Respondent never actually
opposed the grant of the request but was only suspicious
Applicant's

owing to the

refusal to disclose the purpose for which the information was

required. I am not in position to appreciate this argument for the Respondent

given the fact that upon receipt of the request, the Respondent is said not to
have made any response at all even when the Applicant followed up with a
letter dated 10102/2014. In my view, if the problem was the non-disclosure of
the purpose of the information, the Respondent would have written back to the
Applicant communicating so, so that the only argument would be whether such
disclosure

was legally required.

The record however

indicates

that the

Applicant's request was flatly denied andlor completely ignored.

All in all the applicant has satisfied the court that the Respondent was not
justified to refuse his request for access to the information

sought. This

application therefore succeeds and the reliefs sought ought to be granted. Both
Counsel specifically submitted as to costs of the application. I have considered
the submissions, the law and the circumstances of this particular case. In view
6

of the finding that the Applicant was unjustifiably

denied the information

requested for and that the Respondent acted in blatant disregard of the law, I
don't find any justification not to award the applicant costs of this application.
The Applicant is therefore entitled to the costs of the application.

In the premises, the application is allowed with the following reliefs:1. A declaration that the Executive. Director of the Respondent wrongly
refused the Applicant's request for access to information under the
Access to Information Act 2005.
2. An order directing the Executive Director of the Respondent to grant
the Applicant access to any and all records or information that the
Applicant requested for in accordance with the Act.
3. An order restraining the Executive Director of the Respondent from
concealing

information

pertaining

to the subject matter of the

Applicant's request.
4. An order awarding the Applicantthe costs of the suit.

It is so ordered.

~ ;;'"'1

,:~ri~
CEWAMALA