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

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.

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

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,

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.

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.

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.