96 Kabumba/Application of African Union (human rights) law in Uganda that the above article is similar to article 6 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights to which Uganda is signatory’.23 The African Charter was also relied upon in the 2005 High Court case of Hon. Okupa Elijah and 2020 Others v Attorney General and 3 Others.24 The case concerned the failure of the State to disarm the Karamojong, a cattle-keeping people who were alleged to periodically raid neighbouring communities for cows to expand their herds. The applicants – who were from the Itesot community, and who were led in this action by a Member of Parliament from the area – faulted the Ugandan state for failing to take legislative and other steps to protect them from the Karamojong. In upholding the claim, Judge David Batema invoked article 5 of the African Charter, on the right to dignity.25 He also referred to article 28 of the Charter, ostensibly on the right to non-discrimination, in deciding that the state had not been consistent in its (non)enforcement of the Firearms Act in different parts of the country.26 Further, in the 2006 decision in Caroline Turyatemba and 4 Others v Attorney General and Another,27 the Constitutional Court referred to articles 7(1)(c) (right to be heard) and 8 (freedom of conscience and free practice of religion) of the Charter28 in considering the petitioner’s claims to constitutional violations relating to land allocation. Although the petition was dismissed, the Court drew upon these African Charter provisions in articulating the nature and scope of the relevant constitutional rights, partly on the basis that the Charter preceded the 1995 Uganda Constitution and had inspired its provisions.29 The reference also appears to have been based on the Court’s appreciation for the need for Ugandan law to be consistent with relevant international standards.30 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 At 49. High Court Misc Cause 14 of 2005, arising from Misc Cause 163 of 2002. At 14. At 15-16 of the Charter. Art 28 of the Charter is to the effect that ‘[e]very individual shall have the duty to respect and consider his fellow beings without discrimination, and to maintain relations aimed at promoting, safeguarding and reinforcing mutual respect and tolerance’. The decision in this respect is problematic in so far it appears to invoke a provision which refers to the duties of the individual, with respect to the obligation of the State. It would appear that the more appropriate Charter provision in this respect was article 2, which requires states to ensure that the rights in the Charter are enjoyed without discrimination on any basis. Constitutional Petition 15 of 2006. At 12, 14 and 20 of the Decision. See 14 (‘The above articles of the 1995 Uganda Constitution [on freedom of expression] have their foundation from a number of International Instruments that preceded the Uganda Constitution’); at 15 (‘…articles 29(1) (c), 37 and other relevant national objectives and articles of the Uganda Constitution are a reinstatement of the international human rights law position’) and at 20 (‘Article 21, like articles 29 and 37 of the Constitution, has also its foundation in a number of international legal Instruments that preceded the 1995 Uganda Constitution’). See 11-12 (‘This principle [hear the other side] is now of universal application’); at 15 (‘On the basis of the above international Instruments, and the current norms, practices and values practiced by the international community of nations, it can