|DATE FILED||CITATION AND SUMMARISED SUBJECT MATTER|
|1||15th, March 2021||
REFERENCE NO. 13 OF 2021 DR. LINA ZEDRIGA WARU ABUKU & 4 OTHERS v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA & ANOTHER
The Applicants allege that the conduct of Presidential Election in the Republic of Uganda was a clear and unambiguous violation of the Constitution of Uganda, the EAC Treaty,the African Human Rights Charter, the Maputo Protocol, ACDEG and the settled principles of election law and practice in the EAC, AU nad international law. That the series of serios and massive violations of the rights of citizens and residents of the Republic of Uganda by the security agencies and agents of the Respondent, including militia and other non-state actors acting with the active support and/or forbearance of these of these agencies and agents, in the days preceding, during and immediately after the announcement of presidential election results on 16/1/2021 and which serious and massive violations continue to date. That the actions and omissions of the Respondent amount to violation of Articles 6(d), 7(2) and 8(1)(c) of the EAC Treaty, Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 13 of the African Human Rights Charter and Articles 3, 4, 9 and 10(1) of the Maputo Protocol.
|2||12th, March 2021||
REFERENCE NO. 12 OF 2021 EAST AFRICAN LAW SOCIETY v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA & THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE EAST AFRICAN COMMUNITY
The Applicant alleges that the 1st Respondent’s acts of blocking access to internet-based social media platforms and online messaging applications including Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, Instagram and others, in addition to the online mobile application stores, Google Play Store and App Store and further ordering the blocking of access to over 100 Virtual Private Networks (VPN) barring any attempts to circumvent its aforementioned internet censorship were in breach of Articles 6(d), 7(2) and 8(1)(c) of the EAC Treaty.
The Applicant also alleges that the 2nd Respondent’s failure to investigate and submit its findings to the Republic of Uganda in the context of the restrictions was an abdication of its duty under Article 29 of the Treaty
|3||11th, March 2021||
REFERENCE NO. 11 OF 2021 MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUKA v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
The Applicant alleges that the Memo by the Republic of Kenya’s Director Veterinary Service, dated 14th January 2021, suspending importation of chicken cases and cuts and chicken table eggs for chicken consumption from East African Community partner states in pretext of support to producers to recover from disruption in their livestock enterprises occasioned by Covid-19; and the instruction dated 5th March 2021 from Republic of Kenya’s Agriculture and Food Authority Director General, stopping with immediate effect, imports of maize from partner states of Uganda and Tanzania under the pretext that the said maize contains high levels of aflatoxins; are unlawful and infringements of Articles 6(d), 6(e), 6(f), 7(1)(a)&(c) and 7(2) of the Treaty for the establishment of the East African Community and Articles 2(4), 3, 4(1)(2), 5(2)(e), 5(3)(b) 16(1), 17(1), 20, 24(1)(a), 28 and 54(2) of the Protocol on the establishment of the East African Community Common Market.
|4||3rd, March 2021||
REFERENCE NO. 10 OF 2021 GERMAIN KAMWALA MOLA v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF RWANDA
The Applicant alleges that torture and barbaric physical trauma against him while in police custody, while abducted from the Nyanza prison to Nyungwe forest and subsequent his subsequent paralysis on an entire half of his body amounted to human rights violations by the Respondent’s officers, contrary to the Treaty. The Applicant avers that the Respondent failed to uphold laws of Republic of Rwanda and the Treaty by failing to guarantee him freedom of establishment, movement of capital, right to protection of property and by carrying out expropriation of his investment funds without due regard to procedure and fairness and without compensation. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent violated Article 29 of the EAC Common Market Protocol by discriminating against the Applicant, being a Kenyan citizen, and unfairly taking over his investment or failing to guarantee him protection of the law like other investors in Rwanda.
|5||1st, March 2021||
REFERENCE NO. 9 OF 2021 MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUKA v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
The Applicant alleges that the decision of Owiny-Dollo, Chief Justice in Uganda, dated 23rd February 2021 of refusing to recuse himself from hearing Supreme Court Presidential Petition No 1 of 2021 [Kyagulanyi Ssentamu Robert v Yoweri Museveni Tibuhaburwa & 2 Others] despite being a former advocate representing Yoweri Museveni Tibuhaburwa and meeting him several times in pendency of the petition, is unlawful and an infringement on the fundamental and operational principles of the community under Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community and Articles 3, 5(3)(b), and 54(2) of the Protocol on the Establishment of East African Community Common Market.
|6||26th, February 2021||
REFERENCE NO. 8 OF 2021 MICHAEL KOJO OTIENO & ANOTHER v. THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE EAST AFRICAN COMMUNITY & ANOTHER
The Applicants allege that the outgoing Secretary General weakness in preparation on annual procurement plans contrary to section 4.1 of EAC procurement policies and procedures manual 2016 and failing to account for 1.8 Million on 1000 assets hence making it difficult to pay workers and members of the East Africa Legislative Assembly adjourning the sessions of the house was in violation of the fundamental principles of the community as enshrined in Article 6(d) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community.
|7||16th, February 2021||
REFERENCE NO. 7 OF 2021 GERMAIN KAMWALA MOLA v. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF IMMIGRATION & EMIGRATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF RWANDA AND 2 OTHERS
The Applicant alleges that the Respondents’ acts of confiscating the Applicants passport, 2 visa cards, 2 smartphones, 1 laptop, 1 ipad, 1 projector, looting of money using the confiscated Visa Card, abducting him from Nyanza prison to Nyungwe forest, defamation, torture, illegal detention and systematic detention which acts have not been investigated to date violate principles of the rule of law, good governance and human rights as enshrined in the Treaty.
|8||10th, February 2021||
REFERENCE NO. 6 OF 2021 AGUOK KUEI YOUTH ASSOCIATION v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH SUDAN
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent’s silence and the acts/directives of the former Governor of Gogriel State leading to the torture and murder of 27 civilians were in violation the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, Code of Procedure of South Sudan and of Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community.
|9||29th, January 2021||
REFERENCE NO. 5 OF 2021 BIKOBERE FARIDA & ANOTHER v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
The Applicant alleges the Respondents act of indiscriminately shutting/disrupting internet and other digital services in Uganda from 13th to 18th January, 2021 was an unjustified restriction on the right to freedom of expression and violation of the principles of good governance, including adherence to freedom to the principles of democracy, the rule of law, social justice and maintenance of universally accepted standards of human rights which the respondent State has committed to abide by under Article 6(d), 7(2) and 8(1)(c) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community.
|10||25th, January 2021||
REFERENCE NO. 4 OF 2021 IVAN SAMUEL SSEBADDIKE v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
The applicant alleges that there has been a violation of Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty by the Justices of the Supreme Court of Uganda who purported to prosecute him on a manifestly duplex charge of Contempt of Court, ordering his pre-trial detention and subsequent conviction and imprisonment for three years vide Presidential Election Petition No.1 of 2020 Ivan Samuel Ssebadduka v The Chairman Electoral Commission and 3 others.