Philip C. Jessup, Int’l Moot Court Patrick Turinawe
Mercy Grace Kisinza
Nantongo Angela
Silver Kayondo
Roland Yongera
World Human Rights Moot Kiconco Judith
Kiwana Jonathan
ICRC Team 1 Masiga Colline
Sevume Semanya Jospeh
Natamba Juliana
ICRC Team 2 (If Permitted) Emuron Gerald
Asiimwe Fred Johnson
Nalule Vickie
East Africa Human Rights Moot Zeere James
Brian Kambaho
African Human Rights Moot Daniel Gasatura
Nakato Immaculate
Description of the Moots and general explanation on selections and the selection process:
Philip C. Jessup, Int’l Moot Court: This Moot requires an exceptional commitment on behalf of the competitors. Jessup Moot team members remain on campus for the majority of the Christmas/New Years break to complete two large briefs of the highest quality possible. There is no guarantee that our team will be invited to Washington, D.C. to compete in the International Rounds as only one team from Uganda is invited. However, over the past three years UCU is the only Law School that has been able to field a team that completed the briefs and that was able to travel to Washington D.C. The International Rounds will take place next year in mid to late March. The second year team members will not be traveling to D.C. unless they are able to make their own arrangements to cover the cost of air travel from Entebbe to Washington, D.C. However, third-year team members who substantially contribute to brief writing on this year’s team will be given priority for selection to the 2012-2013 Jessup team as fourth year students. Team members were selected based on their combined demonstrated ability in written and oral advocacy, their commitment and leadership demonstrated in extra-curricular activities, and their experience in past mooting exercises.
The Jessup Moot Court problem will be released in September of 2011. The Jessup Moot Committee has agreed that this year’s problem will address the following issues: 1) a dispute between two States over the destruction of a cultural site of great significance; 2) the question of who may represent a State internationally in the immediate aftermath of a coup d'etat; and 3) international responsibility for the use of force by a State while taking part in a regional operation to bring about democracy. Team members should meet in the near future to begin a strategy for researching these relevant topics.
World Human Rights Moot: The World Human Rights Moot will take place in Pretoria, South Africa on the 8th and 9th of December 2011. In order to be invited to South Africa team members must submit “heads of argument” on the basis of a hypothetical case by 9 September, 2011. The top three submissions from each of the five UN regions will be invited to participate in the moot. As a result of the threshold writing requirement team members were selected based on demonstrated oral and written advocacy skills. The hypothetical case can be downloaded at:
http://web.up.ac.za/default.asp?ipkCategoryID=11341&subid=11341&ipklookid=10
ICRC National Moot: The ICRC Moot focuses on oral advocacy, improvisation and teamwork. ICRC team members were selected largely based on their demonstrated skills in oral advocacy. Over the past two years UCU has been able to register two teams for this moot. However, based on the growing number of law schools in Uganda we may be limited to one team this year. If the second ICRC team is not permitted to participate we will endeavor to provide those students with another mooting opportunity. In order to prepare for this moot it is important to master the International Humanitarian Law. Team members should work on obtaining materials to study over the next few months in order to prepare. The Competition normally takes place in October with the winning team from Uganda going on to Arusha to compete against other teams from Africa in late November. Fourth year students are selected for this moot based on their anticipated enrollment in International Humanitarian Law.
The East Africa Human Rights Moot (Rw.): This is a Human Rights moot that takes place in Rwanda that UCU has participated in twice. The timing of the event fluctuates. This year it took place in February. This moot emphasizes both written and oral skills and the team was selected on that basis. Fourth year students are selected for this moot based on their anticipated enrollment in Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law.
The Africa Human Rights Moot: This Moot normally takes place in July or August. Therefore we have selected second year students for this moot. The location for the moot has yet to be announced. It is important for students in this moot to being acquiring a knowledge and understanding of Human Rights Law Internationally and in Africa. Students were selected based on their written and oral performance in UCU’s 2011 Intra-University Moot Court Competition.
Other Possible Moot Opportunities: The Faculty of Law at Uganda Christian University is willing to pursue other mooting opportunities based on available funding and accessibility. In the past UCU has competed in a national moot hosted by APILU. UCU would certainly want to participate in such a moot if it was to be held during the 2011-2012 school year. In addition, UCU is working on the development of a future moot focusing on the East African Community issues. It would be great if such an event could take place during the 2011-2012 academic year although it does not look likely at this point.
Note to Selected Students: If you were selected for a competition but you would prefer not to participate or you have found a selected student that would like to switch with you please contact Brian Dennison at dbriandennison@gmail.com
Note to Students Not Selected: If you are a rising third-year student who participated in the 2011 Intra-University Moot and you were not selected please do not be discouraged. Hopefully, there will be opportunities for you to compete on the national and international level during the 2012-2013 Academic year. However, if you are interested in being selected for such competitions next year you would be wise to compete in the 2012 Intra-University Moot. Also, there is a possibility that students not selected this year will be asked to join national and international teams of the course of the 2011-2012 academic year. Such ad hoc selections may not be as formal as the process used to choose these teams or the current 2011 African Human Rights Moot Team. Therefore it is important to make your interest in competing known in order to make sure you receive due consideration. It is presumed that all students that competed in the 2011 Intra-University Moots have an interest in competing at the national and international level.
Thank you to everyone for your commitment to excellence in moots at UCU!
Brian Dennison
Thursday, June 30, 2011
2010-2011 Moot Season Initial Team Placements
Philip C. Jessup, Int’l Moot Court Patrick Turinawe
Mercy Grace Kisinza
Nantongo Angela
Silver Kayondo
Roland Yongera
World Human Rights Moot Kiconco Judith
Kiwana Jonathan
ICRC Team 1 Masiga Colline
Sevume Semanya Jospeh
Natamba Juliana
ICRC Team 2 (If Permitted) Emuron Gerald
Asiimwe Fred Johnson
Nalule Vickie
East Africa Human Rights Moot Zeere James
Brian Kambaho
African Human Rights Moot Daniel Gasatura
Nakato Immaculate
Description of the Moots and general explanation on selections and the selection process:
Philip C. Jessup, Int’l Moot Court: This Moot requires an exceptional commitment on behalf of the competitors. Jessup Moot team members remain on campus for the majority of the Christmas/New Years break to complete two large briefs of the highest quality possible. There is no guarantee that our team will be invited to Washington, D.C. to compete in the International Rounds as only one team from Uganda is invited. However, over the past three years UCU is the only Law School that has been able to field a team that completed the briefs and that was able to travel to Washington D.C. The International Rounds will take place next year in mid to late March. The second year team members will not be traveling to D.C. unless they are able to make their own arrangements to cover the cost of air travel from Entebbe to Washington, D.C. However, third-year team members who substantially contribute to brief writing on this year’s team will be given priority for selection to the 2012-2013 Jessup team as fourth year students. Team members were selected based on their combined demonstrated ability in written and oral advocacy, their commitment and leadership demonstrated in extra-curricular activities, and their experience in past mooting exercises.
The Jessup Moot Court problem will be released in September of 2011. The Jessup Moot Committee has agreed that this year’s problem will address the following issues: 1) a dispute between two States over the destruction of a cultural site of great significance; 2) the question of who may represent a State internationally in the immediate aftermath of a coup d'etat; and 3) international responsibility for the use of force by a State while taking part in a regional operation to bring about democracy. Team members should meet in the near future to begin a strategy for researching these relevant topics.
World Human Rights Moot: The World Human Rights Moot will take place in Pretoria, South Africa on the 8th and 9th of December 2011. In order to be invited to South Africa team members must submit “heads of argument” on the basis of a hypothetical case by 9 September, 2011. The top three submissions from each of the five UN regions will be invited to participate in the moot. As a result of the threshold writing requirement team members were selected based on demonstrated oral and written advocacy skills. The hypothetical case can be downloaded at:
http://web.up.ac.za/default.asp?ipkCategoryID=11341&subid=11341&ipklookid=10
ICRC National Moot: The ICRC Moot focuses on oral advocacy, improvisation and teamwork. ICRC team members were selected largely based on their demonstrated skills in oral advocacy. Over the past two years UCU has been able to register two teams for this moot. However, based on the growing number of law schools in Uganda we may be limited to one team this year. If the second ICRC team is not permitted to participate we will endeavor to provide those students with another mooting opportunity. In order to prepare for this moot it is important to master the International Humanitarian Law. Team members should work on obtaining materials to study over the next few months in order to prepare. The Competition normally takes place in October with the winning team from Uganda going on to Arusha to compete against other teams from Africa in late November. Fourth year students are selected for this moot based on their anticipated enrollment in International Humanitarian Law.
The East Africa Human Rights Moot (Rw.): This is a Human Rights moot that takes place in Rwanda that UCU has participated in twice. The timing of the event fluctuates. This year it took place in February. This moot emphasizes both written and oral skills and the team was selected on that basis. Fourth year students are selected for this moot based on their anticipated enrollment in Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law.
The Africa Human Rights Moot: This Moot normally takes place in July or August. Therefore we have selected second year students for this moot. The location for the moot has yet to be announced. It is important for students in this moot to being acquiring a knowledge and understanding of Human Rights Law Internationally and in Africa. Students were selected based on their written and oral performance in UCU’s 2011 Intra-University Moot Court Competition.
Other Possible Moot Opportunities: The Faculty of Law at Uganda Christian University is willing to pursue other mooting opportunities based on available funding and accessibility. In the past UCU has competed in a national moot hosted by APILU. UCU would certainly want to participate in such a moot if it was to be held during the 2011-2012 school year. In addition, UCU is working on the development of a future moot focusing on the East African Community issues. It would be great if such an event could take place during the 2011-2012 academic year although it does not look likely at this point.
Note to Selected Students: If you were selected for a competition but you would prefer not to participate or you have found a selected student that would like to switch with you please contact Brian Dennison at dbriandennison@gmail.com
Note to Students Not Selected: If you are a rising third-year student who participated in the 2011 Intra-University Moot and you were not selected please do not be discouraged. Hopefully, there will be opportunities for you to compete on the national and international level during the 2012-2013 Academic year. However, if you are interested in being selected for such competitions next year you would be wise to compete in the 2012 Intra-University Moot. Also, there is a possibility that students not selected this year will be asked to join national and international teams of the course of the 2011-2012 academic year. Such ad hoc selections may not be as formal as the process used to choose these teams or the current 2011 African Human Rights Moot Team. Therefore it is important to make your interest in competing known in order to make sure you receive due consideration. It is presumed that all students that competed in the 2011 Intra-University Moots have an interest in competing at the national and international level.
Thank you to everyone for your commitment to excellence in moots at UCU!
Brian Dennison
Mercy Grace Kisinza
Nantongo Angela
Silver Kayondo
Roland Yongera
World Human Rights Moot Kiconco Judith
Kiwana Jonathan
ICRC Team 1 Masiga Colline
Sevume Semanya Jospeh
Natamba Juliana
ICRC Team 2 (If Permitted) Emuron Gerald
Asiimwe Fred Johnson
Nalule Vickie
East Africa Human Rights Moot Zeere James
Brian Kambaho
African Human Rights Moot Daniel Gasatura
Nakato Immaculate
Description of the Moots and general explanation on selections and the selection process:
Philip C. Jessup, Int’l Moot Court: This Moot requires an exceptional commitment on behalf of the competitors. Jessup Moot team members remain on campus for the majority of the Christmas/New Years break to complete two large briefs of the highest quality possible. There is no guarantee that our team will be invited to Washington, D.C. to compete in the International Rounds as only one team from Uganda is invited. However, over the past three years UCU is the only Law School that has been able to field a team that completed the briefs and that was able to travel to Washington D.C. The International Rounds will take place next year in mid to late March. The second year team members will not be traveling to D.C. unless they are able to make their own arrangements to cover the cost of air travel from Entebbe to Washington, D.C. However, third-year team members who substantially contribute to brief writing on this year’s team will be given priority for selection to the 2012-2013 Jessup team as fourth year students. Team members were selected based on their combined demonstrated ability in written and oral advocacy, their commitment and leadership demonstrated in extra-curricular activities, and their experience in past mooting exercises.
The Jessup Moot Court problem will be released in September of 2011. The Jessup Moot Committee has agreed that this year’s problem will address the following issues: 1) a dispute between two States over the destruction of a cultural site of great significance; 2) the question of who may represent a State internationally in the immediate aftermath of a coup d'etat; and 3) international responsibility for the use of force by a State while taking part in a regional operation to bring about democracy. Team members should meet in the near future to begin a strategy for researching these relevant topics.
World Human Rights Moot: The World Human Rights Moot will take place in Pretoria, South Africa on the 8th and 9th of December 2011. In order to be invited to South Africa team members must submit “heads of argument” on the basis of a hypothetical case by 9 September, 2011. The top three submissions from each of the five UN regions will be invited to participate in the moot. As a result of the threshold writing requirement team members were selected based on demonstrated oral and written advocacy skills. The hypothetical case can be downloaded at:
http://web.up.ac.za/default.asp?ipkCategoryID=11341&subid=11341&ipklookid=10
ICRC National Moot: The ICRC Moot focuses on oral advocacy, improvisation and teamwork. ICRC team members were selected largely based on their demonstrated skills in oral advocacy. Over the past two years UCU has been able to register two teams for this moot. However, based on the growing number of law schools in Uganda we may be limited to one team this year. If the second ICRC team is not permitted to participate we will endeavor to provide those students with another mooting opportunity. In order to prepare for this moot it is important to master the International Humanitarian Law. Team members should work on obtaining materials to study over the next few months in order to prepare. The Competition normally takes place in October with the winning team from Uganda going on to Arusha to compete against other teams from Africa in late November. Fourth year students are selected for this moot based on their anticipated enrollment in International Humanitarian Law.
The East Africa Human Rights Moot (Rw.): This is a Human Rights moot that takes place in Rwanda that UCU has participated in twice. The timing of the event fluctuates. This year it took place in February. This moot emphasizes both written and oral skills and the team was selected on that basis. Fourth year students are selected for this moot based on their anticipated enrollment in Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law.
The Africa Human Rights Moot: This Moot normally takes place in July or August. Therefore we have selected second year students for this moot. The location for the moot has yet to be announced. It is important for students in this moot to being acquiring a knowledge and understanding of Human Rights Law Internationally and in Africa. Students were selected based on their written and oral performance in UCU’s 2011 Intra-University Moot Court Competition.
Other Possible Moot Opportunities: The Faculty of Law at Uganda Christian University is willing to pursue other mooting opportunities based on available funding and accessibility. In the past UCU has competed in a national moot hosted by APILU. UCU would certainly want to participate in such a moot if it was to be held during the 2011-2012 school year. In addition, UCU is working on the development of a future moot focusing on the East African Community issues. It would be great if such an event could take place during the 2011-2012 academic year although it does not look likely at this point.
Note to Selected Students: If you were selected for a competition but you would prefer not to participate or you have found a selected student that would like to switch with you please contact Brian Dennison at dbriandennison@gmail.com
Note to Students Not Selected: If you are a rising third-year student who participated in the 2011 Intra-University Moot and you were not selected please do not be discouraged. Hopefully, there will be opportunities for you to compete on the national and international level during the 2012-2013 Academic year. However, if you are interested in being selected for such competitions next year you would be wise to compete in the 2012 Intra-University Moot. Also, there is a possibility that students not selected this year will be asked to join national and international teams of the course of the 2011-2012 academic year. Such ad hoc selections may not be as formal as the process used to choose these teams or the current 2011 African Human Rights Moot Team. Therefore it is important to make your interest in competing known in order to make sure you receive due consideration. It is presumed that all students that competed in the 2011 Intra-University Moots have an interest in competing at the national and international level.
Thank you to everyone for your commitment to excellence in moots at UCU!
Brian Dennison
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Time for 2011 UCU Moot Champions Round is Set
The UCU Intra-University Moot Champions Round will take place on Friday, 24 June, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
The round will take place in Nkoyoyo Hall pending University approval.
The round will take place in Nkoyoyo Hall pending University approval.
Update on the 2011 UCU Intra-University Moot
The following are the seedings for the UCU Intra-University Moot. The highest seeded team in each class is team A and the seedings follow from there. It should be noted that the briefs filed this year were very well done.
LLB 2 Teams (plus Wildcard: Team D):
A Silver Kayondo & Roland Yongyera
B Gaasatwa Daniel & Kiwana Jonathan
C Tuhairwe Herman & Tayebwa Elisha
D Ninsiima Agatha & Byaruhanga Timothy
E Twinokwesiga Alexander & Alideki Ssali
F Nakato Immaculate & Muwaya Alex
LLB 3 Teams
A Zeere James & Kambaho Brian
B Kiconco Judith & Patrick Turinawe
C Nantongo Angella & Nantaba Juliana
D Asiimwe Fred Johnson & Emuron Lucas Gerald
E Vickie Nalule Rita & Nakyanzi Deborah
F Masiga Colline & Sevume Semaya Joseph
Teams with the higher seeding in each match-up will have the right to choose the side they argue.
The format of the Competition will be as follows:
All teams will compete twice in the preliminary rounds. The two highest finishing teams will meet in a final round. The first determination of your team’s order of placement is your match score. This is based on the number of rounds your team won by by having a higher score than your opposing team. If there is a tie between two or more teams for positions in the final round, teams will be selected based on which team has the highest total/differential score. The total/differential score consists of your teams total score plus or minus your point differential vis a vis the team your faced in the two rounds.
Teams should report to the Faculty of Law at 9:00 a.m. for a briefing. The actual competitions will begin at 10:00 a.m.
The following is a schedule of the preliminary rounds:
10:00 a.m. Session: LLB3 A v. LLB3 F
LLB3 B v. LLB3 E
LLB3 C v. LLB3 D
11:30 a.m. Session: LLB2 A v. LLB2 F
LLB2 B v. LLB2 E
LLB2 C v. Wildcard D
Lunch (for Judges) 1:00 to 2:00
2:00 p.m. Session: LLB3 A v. LLB3 D
LLB3 B v. LLB3 C
LLB3 E v. LLB3 F
3:30 p.m. Session: LLB2 A v. Wildcard D
LLB2 B v. LLB2 C
LLB2 E v. LLB2 F
5:00 p.m. Session: LLB3 Final
LLB2/Wildcard Final
LLB 2 Teams (plus Wildcard: Team D):
A Silver Kayondo & Roland Yongyera
B Gaasatwa Daniel & Kiwana Jonathan
C Tuhairwe Herman & Tayebwa Elisha
D Ninsiima Agatha & Byaruhanga Timothy
E Twinokwesiga Alexander & Alideki Ssali
F Nakato Immaculate & Muwaya Alex
LLB 3 Teams
A Zeere James & Kambaho Brian
B Kiconco Judith & Patrick Turinawe
C Nantongo Angella & Nantaba Juliana
D Asiimwe Fred Johnson & Emuron Lucas Gerald
E Vickie Nalule Rita & Nakyanzi Deborah
F Masiga Colline & Sevume Semaya Joseph
Teams with the higher seeding in each match-up will have the right to choose the side they argue.
The format of the Competition will be as follows:
All teams will compete twice in the preliminary rounds. The two highest finishing teams will meet in a final round. The first determination of your team’s order of placement is your match score. This is based on the number of rounds your team won by by having a higher score than your opposing team. If there is a tie between two or more teams for positions in the final round, teams will be selected based on which team has the highest total/differential score. The total/differential score consists of your teams total score plus or minus your point differential vis a vis the team your faced in the two rounds.
Teams should report to the Faculty of Law at 9:00 a.m. for a briefing. The actual competitions will begin at 10:00 a.m.
The following is a schedule of the preliminary rounds:
10:00 a.m. Session: LLB3 A v. LLB3 F
LLB3 B v. LLB3 E
LLB3 C v. LLB3 D
11:30 a.m. Session: LLB2 A v. LLB2 F
LLB2 B v. LLB2 E
LLB2 C v. Wildcard D
Lunch (for Judges) 1:00 to 2:00
2:00 p.m. Session: LLB3 A v. LLB3 D
LLB3 B v. LLB3 C
LLB3 E v. LLB3 F
3:30 p.m. Session: LLB2 A v. Wildcard D
LLB2 B v. LLB2 C
LLB2 E v. LLB2 F
5:00 p.m. Session: LLB3 Final
LLB2/Wildcard Final
Monday, June 6, 2011
2011 UCU Intra-Univeristy Moot Court Competition
The Prelimary Rounds of the UCU Intra-University Moot Court Competition will take place at the Faculty of Law on Saturday, 18 of June.
The Preliminary Rounds will begin at 9:00 a.m. and will conclude in the early evening.
Further details about the Preliminary Rounds including intitial team pairings and room assignments will be provided prior to the competition date.
The Preliminary Rounds will establish an LLB 2 Champion and an LLB 3 Champion.
The Champions Round will likely take at a date and time to be determined.
The Preliminary Rounds will begin at 9:00 a.m. and will conclude in the early evening.
Further details about the Preliminary Rounds including intitial team pairings and room assignments will be provided prior to the competition date.
The Preliminary Rounds will establish an LLB 2 Champion and an LLB 3 Champion.
The Champions Round will likely take at a date and time to be determined.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Teams Qualified to Participate in the UCU Intra-University Moots Oral Rounds
All teams that submitted briefs are invited to participate in the oral rounds.
The teams that are invited to the oral rounds are as follows:
Tuhairwe Herman & Tayebwa Elisha
Silver Konyando & Roland Yongyera
Gaasatwa Daniel & Kiwana Jonathan
Twinokwesiga Alexander & Alideki Ssali
Ninsiima Agatha & Byaruhanga TImothy
Asiimwe Fred Johnson & Emuron Lucas Gerald
Kiconco Judith & Patrick Turinawe
Nantongo Angella & Nantaba Juliana
Zeere James & Kambaho Brian
Masiga Colline & Sevume Semaya Joseph
Vickie Nalule Rita & Nakyanzi Deborah
If you know of other teams that attempted to submit written breifs but are not listed above please advise. Dure to the confusion in the submission process, we want to make sure that all teams that attempted to file briefs are catered for.
Please contact me at dbriandennison@gmail.com if you are aware of any such teams.
Brian Dennison
The teams that are invited to the oral rounds are as follows:
Tuhairwe Herman & Tayebwa Elisha
Silver Konyando & Roland Yongyera
Gaasatwa Daniel & Kiwana Jonathan
Twinokwesiga Alexander & Alideki Ssali
Ninsiima Agatha & Byaruhanga TImothy
Asiimwe Fred Johnson & Emuron Lucas Gerald
Kiconco Judith & Patrick Turinawe
Nantongo Angella & Nantaba Juliana
Zeere James & Kambaho Brian
Masiga Colline & Sevume Semaya Joseph
Vickie Nalule Rita & Nakyanzi Deborah
If you know of other teams that attempted to submit written breifs but are not listed above please advise. Dure to the confusion in the submission process, we want to make sure that all teams that attempted to file briefs are catered for.
Please contact me at dbriandennison@gmail.com if you are aware of any such teams.
Brian Dennison
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Incorrect E-mail Address (with Revised Dates)
Dear Competitors in the 2011 UCU Intra-University Moot.
Please note that the e-mail address listed in the Competition Rules is Incorrect:
If you have been unable to send your brief by e-mail to this point please send it to:
dbriandennison@gmail.com
Sorry for this inconvenience. Late submissions of competitors who have been unable to submit their briefs will be accepted through Monday, the 30th of May.
An announcement regarding the teams that qualify for the oral rounds will be delayed until Friday the 3rd of June,
Please note that the e-mail address listed in the Competition Rules is Incorrect:
If you have been unable to send your brief by e-mail to this point please send it to:
dbriandennison@gmail.com
Sorry for this inconvenience. Late submissions of competitors who have been unable to submit their briefs will be accepted through Monday, the 30th of May.
An announcement regarding the teams that qualify for the oral rounds will be delayed until Friday the 3rd of June,
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Correction to Moot Problem
Please note that there is an error in the 2011 Intra-University Moot Problem.
It appears in the third paragraph of the section entitled "Special Rules Regarding Educational Providers Associated with Militant Religious Bodies."
javascript:void(0)
The erroneous text reads:
Nothing in this act shall empower the government of Uganda to prohibit the banning of any canonical religious texts such as the Koran and the Bible. However, particularly odious portions of canonical religious texts may be banned from inclusion in religious or educational instruction.
The text should read:
Nothing in this act shall empower the government of Uganda to prohibit or ban any canonical religious texts such as the Koran and the Bible. However, particularly odious portions of canonical religious texts may be banned from inclusion in religious or educational instruction.
Please make a note of this correction.
It appears in the third paragraph of the section entitled "Special Rules Regarding Educational Providers Associated with Militant Religious Bodies."
javascript:void(0)
The erroneous text reads:
Nothing in this act shall empower the government of Uganda to prohibit the banning of any canonical religious texts such as the Koran and the Bible. However, particularly odious portions of canonical religious texts may be banned from inclusion in religious or educational instruction.
The text should read:
Nothing in this act shall empower the government of Uganda to prohibit or ban any canonical religious texts such as the Koran and the Bible. However, particularly odious portions of canonical religious texts may be banned from inclusion in religious or educational instruction.
Please make a note of this correction.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Rules for the 2011 UCU Intra-University Moot Competition
Rules for 2011 Intra-UCU Moot Competition:
Teams:
There are two law students on each team. All team members must be enrolled in UCU’s Faculty of Law in 2011. All team members must be from the same year of study. Team members are not required to be enrolled in the same intake sessions.
Schedule:
Briefs must be submitted electronically to Brian Dennison at dbriandennison@law.ucu.ac.ug by Friday, 20 May, 2011. Briefs can be filed as late as midnight on the 20th. Late briefs will not be accepted short of exceptional circumstances.
At least four teams from each class will be accepted into the oral rounds of the moot based on their briefs. A list of teams accepted into the oral rounds based on briefs will be posted at the Faculty of Law and on the UCU Moots blog site by on Friday, 27 May. The address for the blog site is http://ucumoots.blogspot.com/ The first two rounds of the oral competition will take place on Friday, 3 June. The semifinal round will take place on Saturday, 4 June. The final round will take place on a date to be announced on the following week. All teams who are not selected to participate in the oral rounds will be invited to present an oral argument for purposes of evaluation and feedback on Saturday, 4 June. This will give all students who submit briefs the opportunity to be evaluated by the UCU Law Faculty Members involved with the UCU Moot Programme.
Briefs:
In order to compete in the oral rounds of the Intra-UCU Moot teams are required to file a single brief on behalf of either the Petitioner or Respondent.
The brief must be typed, and double-spaced. The font must be 12 point Times New Roman or 12 point Courier. There must be at least one inch of space on all of the margins. The brief may not exceed 25 pages. There is no minimum length. The brief shall consist of a title page, a table of authorities, a concise statement of facts and proceedings (not to exceed 2 pages in length), a legal argument section, and a short prayer of relief. (Please note that in the case of the 2012 moot problem the facts at issue are largely the contents of the law that is being challenged. While it is a “law” for the purposes of this exercise its contents are the facts of the case.)
Teams should structure their arguments as the legal issues are presented in the Moot Problem. Teams are expected to cite ample case law from both Uganda and other jurisdictions in oder to support the many Constitutional arguments elicited by the problem.
The names of the students and their year of study must be listed on the top corner of the first page of the brief and at the end of the brief on a by-line. E-mail points of contact for the team should also be included on the top corner of the first page.
Scoring of the Briefs:
The briefs will be scored on the following grounds:
Writing Style and Organization – 20 Possible Marks
Legal Analysis and Application of Law to Facts– 20 Possible Marks
Compliance with Instructions – 10 Possible Marks
Note: Students are strongly cautioned not to use or refer to briefs of other students (including briefs written by students enrolled in Clinical Legal Education 2) when drafting their briefs.
Oral Rounds:
The teams with the four highest scored briefs in each year of study will be permitted to compete in the oral rounds. If there are four briefs or less than four briefs submitted for any year of study, all teams that have submitted briefs in that year of study will advance to the oral rounds with the highest scoring brief receiving a bye in case there is an odd number of entries. The teams from each year of study will compete against each other to determine the winning team from that year.
In the event that there are two or less briefs filed by the fourth year class a “wildcard” bracket will be created that will consist of the highest scored briefs of all of the classes that were not selected to compete in the four team bracket for their year of study. The four teams from each year of study (and if applicable the “wildcard” bracket) will compete against each other for the title of Intra-UCU Champion.
Each Oralist in the Oral Rounds will be scored as follows:
Knowledge of Law: 20 possible marks
Application of the Law to Facts: 20 possible marks
Ingenuity, Responsiveness and Ability to Answer Questions : 20 possible marks
Style, Poise, Courtesy and Demeanour: 20 possible marks
Organization: 20 possible marks
In the first two rounds, the team with the highest brief score will get to choose which side it wants to argue. In the semi-final and final rounds the side to be argued by each team will be determined by coin flip.
Teams:
There are two law students on each team. All team members must be enrolled in UCU’s Faculty of Law in 2011. All team members must be from the same year of study. Team members are not required to be enrolled in the same intake sessions.
Schedule:
Briefs must be submitted electronically to Brian Dennison at dbriandennison@law.ucu.ac.ug by Friday, 20 May, 2011. Briefs can be filed as late as midnight on the 20th. Late briefs will not be accepted short of exceptional circumstances.
At least four teams from each class will be accepted into the oral rounds of the moot based on their briefs. A list of teams accepted into the oral rounds based on briefs will be posted at the Faculty of Law and on the UCU Moots blog site by on Friday, 27 May. The address for the blog site is http://ucumoots.blogspot.com/ The first two rounds of the oral competition will take place on Friday, 3 June. The semifinal round will take place on Saturday, 4 June. The final round will take place on a date to be announced on the following week. All teams who are not selected to participate in the oral rounds will be invited to present an oral argument for purposes of evaluation and feedback on Saturday, 4 June. This will give all students who submit briefs the opportunity to be evaluated by the UCU Law Faculty Members involved with the UCU Moot Programme.
Briefs:
In order to compete in the oral rounds of the Intra-UCU Moot teams are required to file a single brief on behalf of either the Petitioner or Respondent.
The brief must be typed, and double-spaced. The font must be 12 point Times New Roman or 12 point Courier. There must be at least one inch of space on all of the margins. The brief may not exceed 25 pages. There is no minimum length. The brief shall consist of a title page, a table of authorities, a concise statement of facts and proceedings (not to exceed 2 pages in length), a legal argument section, and a short prayer of relief. (Please note that in the case of the 2012 moot problem the facts at issue are largely the contents of the law that is being challenged. While it is a “law” for the purposes of this exercise its contents are the facts of the case.)
Teams should structure their arguments as the legal issues are presented in the Moot Problem. Teams are expected to cite ample case law from both Uganda and other jurisdictions in oder to support the many Constitutional arguments elicited by the problem.
The names of the students and their year of study must be listed on the top corner of the first page of the brief and at the end of the brief on a by-line. E-mail points of contact for the team should also be included on the top corner of the first page.
Scoring of the Briefs:
The briefs will be scored on the following grounds:
Writing Style and Organization – 20 Possible Marks
Legal Analysis and Application of Law to Facts– 20 Possible Marks
Compliance with Instructions – 10 Possible Marks
Note: Students are strongly cautioned not to use or refer to briefs of other students (including briefs written by students enrolled in Clinical Legal Education 2) when drafting their briefs.
Oral Rounds:
The teams with the four highest scored briefs in each year of study will be permitted to compete in the oral rounds. If there are four briefs or less than four briefs submitted for any year of study, all teams that have submitted briefs in that year of study will advance to the oral rounds with the highest scoring brief receiving a bye in case there is an odd number of entries. The teams from each year of study will compete against each other to determine the winning team from that year.
In the event that there are two or less briefs filed by the fourth year class a “wildcard” bracket will be created that will consist of the highest scored briefs of all of the classes that were not selected to compete in the four team bracket for their year of study. The four teams from each year of study (and if applicable the “wildcard” bracket) will compete against each other for the title of Intra-UCU Champion.
Each Oralist in the Oral Rounds will be scored as follows:
Knowledge of Law: 20 possible marks
Application of the Law to Facts: 20 possible marks
Ingenuity, Responsiveness and Ability to Answer Questions : 20 possible marks
Style, Poise, Courtesy and Demeanour: 20 possible marks
Organization: 20 possible marks
In the first two rounds, the team with the highest brief score will get to choose which side it wants to argue. In the semi-final and final rounds the side to be argued by each team will be determined by coin flip.
The 2011 UCU Intra-University Moot Problem
The 2011 UCU Intra-University Moot Problem
This Moot Problem takes place in the not so distant future. On the 15th of June, 2011 the “Protect Uganda Act” became law. According to the legislative history, Parliament created the Protect Uganda Act in response to security concerns brought on by the terrorist bombings that took place on the night of the World Cup Final in 2010.
The Protect Uganda Act establishes an Administrative body known as the Commission for Homeland Security. This Commission is a branch of the Executive Government and its Commissioner is appointed by the President. The Protect Uganda Act contains many controversial provisions. Here are a few of the most controversial:
The Establishment of a Mandatory Identification Card and the Designation of “High Risk” Ethnic Groups and Religious Sects
The Protect Uganda Act requires all inhabitants of Uganda to obtain a Ugandan Identity Card. The Protect Uganda Act requires that all Uganda Identity Card include information about the individual’s ethnic/tribal background and the individual’s religious affiliation, including the individual’s religious sect or denomination. Failure to provide this information is a criminal offence punishable by five years confinement and a 10 Million UGX fine. It is not an offence to submit that one has no religious affiliation.
The Protect Uganda Act gives the Commissioner of the Commission for Homeland Security the right to designate ethnic groups and religious sects as “high risk” if the Commissioner determines that members of these groups present an aggregate threat to domestic security that substantially exceeds the security risks presented most ethnic groups and religious sects.
The default colour for identification cards for Ugandan citizens is white and the default colour for non-Ugandan citizens is yellow. However, the Protect Uganda Act provides that members of designated high-risk ethnic or religious groups are issued green identification cards. All transportation providers are required to ask for identification cards prior to allowing any individual to board their vehicle. This applies to all vehicles in Uganda. All providers of communication services including but not limited to mobile phone service providers, mobile phone sellers, internet cafe operators, internet service providers are required check the identification card of any individual they sell or otherwise provide communication technology or services to. The Commission for Homeland Security has the power to establish rules to limit, monitor and bar access to communication technology to members of high risk ethnic groups or religious sects.
Meeting Notification Requirements
The Protect Uganda Act provides that there shall be no civilian gathering in excess of thirty (30) people without first registering the gathering with the Committee for Homeland Security. This requirement applies to all civilian meetings, including meetings of a religious or ceremonial nature. The Commission for Homeland Security may charge a fee for any application it receives in order to cover the cost of processing the registrations. The fee must not be disproportionate to the cost of processing, investigating and observing the subject event. The cost of the fee may differ depending on the nature of the gathering. Regularly reoccurring events such as store business hours and weekly religious services can be registered as reoccurring events for up to one year.
Designation and Observance of Militant Religious Bodies
The Commission of Homeland Security has the power to designate certain religions, religious sects, religious denominations or religious congregations as Militant Religious Bodies. A Militant Religious Body is any religious body who by creed, doctrine, teaching, preaching, discipleship or the dissemination of written materials advocates for the use of violence in order to achieve religious ends. The Committee may require any religious body to submit information and cooperate fully with any investigation needed to determine the religious body’s proper designation.
All religious bodies designated as Militant Religious Bodies are required to grant access to a safety observer who has the right to attend all religious events or services sponsored or conducted by that religious body. Militant religious bodies are required to cover all expenses associated with the observational services pertaining to their events and services. The Militant Religious Body must provide written notification of all activities regardless of the number of participants to both the assigned observer and the Commission for Homeland Security at least ten (10) days prior to the activity. The Committee to Protect Uganda may charge an economically commensurate processing fee for all written notifications provided by the militant religious body.
Special Rules Regarding Educational Providers Associated with Militant Religious Bodies
All religious-based and religiously affiliated educational institutions must register with the Commission of Homeland Security. Any educational facility associated with a militant religious body is ineligible of receiving state funds and shall not be an accredited educational institution by any organ of the State of Uganda.
Any educational facility associated with a militant religious body must record all classroom instruction on audiotape and must receive prior approval for all written materials disseminated to students.
Any individual who has studied for more than five years at an educational institution associated with a militant religious body shall be ineligible to hold any political position or publicly funded position of employment that concerns the domestic safety and security of Ugandans. This provision applies to anyone who studied at such an institution for any five-year period after 1991. Individuals subject to this restriction may restore their personal eligibility to hold political positions and publicly funded positions upon completing a de-sensitisation course to be designed and implemented through the Commission of Homeland Security.
Nothing in this act shall empower the government of Uganda to prohibit the banning of any canonical religious texts such as the Koran and the Bible. However, particularly odious portions of canonical religious texts may be banned from inclusion in religious or educational instruction.
Procedural Background
This is a Constitutional Petition filed in the Constitutional Court of Uganda.
brought under Article 137(3) of the Constitutional of the Republic of Uganda.
There are no factual issues in dispute. This matter concerns the constitutionality of the provisions of the Protect Uganda Act outlined above.
The Parties
The original Petitioner in this case is Freedom House Uganda. Freedom House Uganda is a properly registered Non-Government Organisation in Uganda. Freedom House Uganda has been joined by several other petitioners in this case including a group representing the interests of Somalis in Uganda and several Islamic organisations. The Respondent in this case is the State of Uganda represented by the Office of the Attorney General.
Arguments to be Presented
Freedom House contends that the Protect Uganda Act is inconsistent with and in contravention with the Uganda Constitution
1. With respect to the issues pertaining to the identity cards both sides should address constitutional arguments pertaining to 1) the right to privacy; 2) freedom from discrimination based on ethnic or tribal background; 3) freedom from discrimination based on religious status or affiliation; and 4) the unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to a non-legislative governmental entity.
2. With respect to issues pertaining to provisions relating to the Meeting Notification Requirements both sides should address constitutional arguments pertaining to 1) the right to freedom of association; 2) the right to freedom to practice one’s religion/freedom of worship; 3) the freedom of expression; 4) freedom from discrimination based on religious status or affiliation; and 4) the unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to a non-legislative governmental entity.
3. With respect to the issues pertaining to the Designation and Observance of Militant Religious Bodies issues pertaining to the Designation of Religious Bodies both sides should address constitutional arguments pertaining to 1) the right to practice one’s religion/freedom of worship; 2) the right to freedom from discrimination based on religious status or affiliation; 3) the right to privacy; and 4) the unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to a non-legislative governmental entity.
4. With respect to issues pertaining to the Special Rules Regarding Educational Providers Associated with Militant Religious Bodies both sides should address constitutional arguments pertaining to 1) the right to practice one’s religion/freedom of worship; 2) the right to freedom from discrimination based on religious status or affiliation; 3) the right to education; 4) the constitutional provision against retroactive laws; and 5) the right to not have one’ s property taken without due process of law.
The Petitioners are free to raise other arguments against the Protect Uganda Act as long as all such arguments are the proper subject matter for a petition brought under Article 137(3) of the Uganda Constitution.
The Respondent may also address additional arguments that the Respondent believes that a zealous and thorough petitioner would bring in a petition brought under Article 137(3) of the Uganda Constitution.
This Moot Problem takes place in the not so distant future. On the 15th of June, 2011 the “Protect Uganda Act” became law. According to the legislative history, Parliament created the Protect Uganda Act in response to security concerns brought on by the terrorist bombings that took place on the night of the World Cup Final in 2010.
The Protect Uganda Act establishes an Administrative body known as the Commission for Homeland Security. This Commission is a branch of the Executive Government and its Commissioner is appointed by the President. The Protect Uganda Act contains many controversial provisions. Here are a few of the most controversial:
The Establishment of a Mandatory Identification Card and the Designation of “High Risk” Ethnic Groups and Religious Sects
The Protect Uganda Act requires all inhabitants of Uganda to obtain a Ugandan Identity Card. The Protect Uganda Act requires that all Uganda Identity Card include information about the individual’s ethnic/tribal background and the individual’s religious affiliation, including the individual’s religious sect or denomination. Failure to provide this information is a criminal offence punishable by five years confinement and a 10 Million UGX fine. It is not an offence to submit that one has no religious affiliation.
The Protect Uganda Act gives the Commissioner of the Commission for Homeland Security the right to designate ethnic groups and religious sects as “high risk” if the Commissioner determines that members of these groups present an aggregate threat to domestic security that substantially exceeds the security risks presented most ethnic groups and religious sects.
The default colour for identification cards for Ugandan citizens is white and the default colour for non-Ugandan citizens is yellow. However, the Protect Uganda Act provides that members of designated high-risk ethnic or religious groups are issued green identification cards. All transportation providers are required to ask for identification cards prior to allowing any individual to board their vehicle. This applies to all vehicles in Uganda. All providers of communication services including but not limited to mobile phone service providers, mobile phone sellers, internet cafe operators, internet service providers are required check the identification card of any individual they sell or otherwise provide communication technology or services to. The Commission for Homeland Security has the power to establish rules to limit, monitor and bar access to communication technology to members of high risk ethnic groups or religious sects.
Meeting Notification Requirements
The Protect Uganda Act provides that there shall be no civilian gathering in excess of thirty (30) people without first registering the gathering with the Committee for Homeland Security. This requirement applies to all civilian meetings, including meetings of a religious or ceremonial nature. The Commission for Homeland Security may charge a fee for any application it receives in order to cover the cost of processing the registrations. The fee must not be disproportionate to the cost of processing, investigating and observing the subject event. The cost of the fee may differ depending on the nature of the gathering. Regularly reoccurring events such as store business hours and weekly religious services can be registered as reoccurring events for up to one year.
Designation and Observance of Militant Religious Bodies
The Commission of Homeland Security has the power to designate certain religions, religious sects, religious denominations or religious congregations as Militant Religious Bodies. A Militant Religious Body is any religious body who by creed, doctrine, teaching, preaching, discipleship or the dissemination of written materials advocates for the use of violence in order to achieve religious ends. The Committee may require any religious body to submit information and cooperate fully with any investigation needed to determine the religious body’s proper designation.
All religious bodies designated as Militant Religious Bodies are required to grant access to a safety observer who has the right to attend all religious events or services sponsored or conducted by that religious body. Militant religious bodies are required to cover all expenses associated with the observational services pertaining to their events and services. The Militant Religious Body must provide written notification of all activities regardless of the number of participants to both the assigned observer and the Commission for Homeland Security at least ten (10) days prior to the activity. The Committee to Protect Uganda may charge an economically commensurate processing fee for all written notifications provided by the militant religious body.
Special Rules Regarding Educational Providers Associated with Militant Religious Bodies
All religious-based and religiously affiliated educational institutions must register with the Commission of Homeland Security. Any educational facility associated with a militant religious body is ineligible of receiving state funds and shall not be an accredited educational institution by any organ of the State of Uganda.
Any educational facility associated with a militant religious body must record all classroom instruction on audiotape and must receive prior approval for all written materials disseminated to students.
Any individual who has studied for more than five years at an educational institution associated with a militant religious body shall be ineligible to hold any political position or publicly funded position of employment that concerns the domestic safety and security of Ugandans. This provision applies to anyone who studied at such an institution for any five-year period after 1991. Individuals subject to this restriction may restore their personal eligibility to hold political positions and publicly funded positions upon completing a de-sensitisation course to be designed and implemented through the Commission of Homeland Security.
Nothing in this act shall empower the government of Uganda to prohibit the banning of any canonical religious texts such as the Koran and the Bible. However, particularly odious portions of canonical religious texts may be banned from inclusion in religious or educational instruction.
Procedural Background
This is a Constitutional Petition filed in the Constitutional Court of Uganda.
brought under Article 137(3) of the Constitutional of the Republic of Uganda.
There are no factual issues in dispute. This matter concerns the constitutionality of the provisions of the Protect Uganda Act outlined above.
The Parties
The original Petitioner in this case is Freedom House Uganda. Freedom House Uganda is a properly registered Non-Government Organisation in Uganda. Freedom House Uganda has been joined by several other petitioners in this case including a group representing the interests of Somalis in Uganda and several Islamic organisations. The Respondent in this case is the State of Uganda represented by the Office of the Attorney General.
Arguments to be Presented
Freedom House contends that the Protect Uganda Act is inconsistent with and in contravention with the Uganda Constitution
1. With respect to the issues pertaining to the identity cards both sides should address constitutional arguments pertaining to 1) the right to privacy; 2) freedom from discrimination based on ethnic or tribal background; 3) freedom from discrimination based on religious status or affiliation; and 4) the unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to a non-legislative governmental entity.
2. With respect to issues pertaining to provisions relating to the Meeting Notification Requirements both sides should address constitutional arguments pertaining to 1) the right to freedom of association; 2) the right to freedom to practice one’s religion/freedom of worship; 3) the freedom of expression; 4) freedom from discrimination based on religious status or affiliation; and 4) the unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to a non-legislative governmental entity.
3. With respect to the issues pertaining to the Designation and Observance of Militant Religious Bodies issues pertaining to the Designation of Religious Bodies both sides should address constitutional arguments pertaining to 1) the right to practice one’s religion/freedom of worship; 2) the right to freedom from discrimination based on religious status or affiliation; 3) the right to privacy; and 4) the unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to a non-legislative governmental entity.
4. With respect to issues pertaining to the Special Rules Regarding Educational Providers Associated with Militant Religious Bodies both sides should address constitutional arguments pertaining to 1) the right to practice one’s religion/freedom of worship; 2) the right to freedom from discrimination based on religious status or affiliation; 3) the right to education; 4) the constitutional provision against retroactive laws; and 5) the right to not have one’ s property taken without due process of law.
The Petitioners are free to raise other arguments against the Protect Uganda Act as long as all such arguments are the proper subject matter for a petition brought under Article 137(3) of the Uganda Constitution.
The Respondent may also address additional arguments that the Respondent believes that a zealous and thorough petitioner would bring in a petition brought under Article 137(3) of the Uganda Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)