Health Rights Activists have criticised today’s court ruling that threw out a petition seeking court’s intervention to minimize high preventable deaths among pregnant mothers.
Five Constitutional Court Justices led by the Deputy Chief Justice Alice Mpagi-Bahigeine, held that their court could not address questions in the petition on grounds that it is the duty of the Executive arm of government to do so since they were ‘political questions’.
The petition was filed on March 11, 2011 by Centre for Health, Human Rights and Development (CEHURD), a local women’s organisation.
The petition was highlighting the cases of Sylvia Nalubowa and Jennifer Anguko who died unnecessarily in childbirth at Mityana and Arua hospitals respectively.
The petition was among others seeking court’s declarations that the non-provision of essential maternal health commodities and services in the government health facilities leading to the death of expectant mothers, is an infringement on their rights to life and health.
But the judges ruled that the court has no power to determine or enforce its jurisdiction on matters of analysis of the health sector, government policies, reviewing and implementing them. If court determines the issue raised in the petition, the judges ruled, it would be substituting its discretion granted to it by law for that of the executive. The other justices included; Constance Byamugisha, Stephen Kavuma, Augustine Nshimye and Remmy Kasule.
The health activists now argue that the Constitutional Court ruling means that the status quo of 16 pregnant mothers dying on a daily basis will continue unchecked.
Noor Nakibuuka from CEHURD said they are deeply disappointed that the Constitutional Court had ruled that is has no standing to address a life and death issue affecting all Ugandans. She described the ruling as a mistake.
They also vowed to appeal the ruling before Supreme Court.
The justices in their ruling, agreed with the preliminary objection raised by the Principal State Attorney Patricia Mutesi during the hearing of the case.
In her submissions, Mutesi argued that the petition as framed fell under ‘political questions’ and that it was supposed to be addressed by the Executive or the Legislative arms of the government but not the Judiciary.
As to costs, the justices asked each party to bear its costs on grounds that the petitioners were motivated by their respective concerns for the plight of maternal mothers and not for their personal considerations in lodging and prosecuting the petition.
