CEPIL claims government institutions are using the sub judice rule to deny people public information beyond what is demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. That the sub judice rule as postulated by both the courts of judicature of Uganda, the parliament of Uganda and the public bodies to deny the petitioner and other members of the public access to information is inconsistent with the Constitution (with the right to access information and the freedom of expression)
CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LAW Vs ATTORNEY GENERAL
Introduction
CEPIL claims government institutions are using the sub judice rule to deny people public information beyond what is demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. That the sub judice rule as postulated by both the courts of judicature of Uganda, the parliament of Uganda and the public bodies to deny the petitioner and other members of the public access to information is inconsistent with the Constitution (with the right to access information and the freedom of expression)
CEPIL claims government institutions are using the sub judice rule to deny people public information beyond what is demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. That the sub judice rule as postulated by both the courts of judicature of Uganda, the parliament of Uganda and the public bodies to deny the petitioner and other members of the public access to information is inconsistent with the Constitution (with the right to access information and the freedom of expression)
