Mwenda sedition x2

Last Friday, Andrew Mwenda was formally charged with sedition for a story in his Independent bi-monthly which alleged UDPF involvement in killings in Northern Uganda. Independent reporters John Njoroge and Charles Bichachi were charged alongside Mwenda.

This is not the first time Mwenda has been charged with sedition. He is currently fighting in the Supreme Court earlier charges which arose from a radio-show Mwenda had in 2005 in which there had been speculation about the death of Southern Sudanese leader John Garang. Mwenda is challenging the constitutionality of the Penal Code sections under which he has been charged: Sections 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44, which establish sedition and promoting sectarianism as offences against the state, and Section 179, which establishes the offence of libel. Section 39 defines sedition as an "intention to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the person of the president, the government as by law established." Section 40 provides for a five years sentence or a fine of USh50,000 on conviction. On second conviction, the sentence can be up to seven years. It is reported that several journalists have been prosecuted under these Penal Code provisions.

This earlier case has been ongoing for several years now and was scheduled to be heard in April 2008. It was not; and I'm not aware if a new date for the hearing has been set. He is asking that the new charges are postponed pending the Supreme Court's determination of the constitutionality of the sedition provisions. Which makes sense to me.

By the way, here is the army's response to the April 2008 allegations, which makes inaccurate by-the-by remarks about the Freedom of Information Act and describes Mwenda as "the single biggest beneficiary of Uganda's freedom of press and speech". Ah, so that's why he is resisting multiple sedition charges filed against him and had to fight for years to overturn a 'false news' charge against him. Sure, that makes sense, he is really enjoying his freedom of speech. Anyway, it makes you wonder why they need to resort to filing sedition charges, if the government can just use the state-owned newspaper to promote its own version of events.