By The court has dismissed a case filed by the Center for Health, Human Rights, and Development (CEHURD) against the National Medical Stores (NMS) for the late delivery and distribution of medical and health supplies across Uganda. CEHURD argued that the delays violated multiple human rights under the Bill of Rights.
The health rights activists accused NMS of failing to ensure the timely distribution of essential medicines and medical supplies. However, High Court Judge Dr. Douglas Singiza ruled that the state cannot be held responsible as it had taken proactive, targeted, and measurable steps to fulfill its obligations under both the Constitution and international human rights agreements.
“Despite the operational and logistical issues at the time, there is no evidence in the motion before me that indicates a breach of state promises regarding access to medical services in Uganda,” Judge Singiza stated.
The court acknowledged the applicant’s complaint about the inefficiency in the distribution system for essential medicines and health supplies. However, it emphasized that the Constitution does not explicitly recognize a right to access essential medicines and health supplies.
Justice Singiza concurred with the Attorney General’s objection, noting that there is no clearly stated constitutional right to access essential medicines and health supplies that could have been violated. He added that while the debate on the justiciability of social and economic rights such as access to medical services has ended in Uganda and many other African countries, the focus now is on how these rights can be enforced, especially in developing countries facing competing demands and priorities.
The court concluded that the complaint was based on an alleged failure to ensure timely distribution of essential medicines and health supplies, which, while a breach of statutory mandate under Section 4 of the NMSA, did not constitute a proven infringement of rights to life, health, human dignity, and protection from inhuman and degrading treatment as outlined in Article 50 of the Constitution. Thus, the application was deemed faulty as it did not disclose any cause of action.
