J19 Looked the at from intention which the era of its enactment, in could have 67 the effect have colonial rulers. may Section was good suppress of formenting In the absence been to I am native of the view that dissenting insurrection views against of a constitutionally guaranteed law at the time, not to the freedom agitations. therefore, the right it at least to the ruling elite though It may, therefore, have served a purpose at the time. legal procedents Again various for the Applicants case of CHARLES GENERAL (Constitutional Country of that Court of 50 Section the Appeal No. 2 of Penal Ugandan in 2002) Code is the again v. ATTORNEY which the Supreme the constitutionality which criminalised alia, inter considered, & ANOTHER OBBO ONYANGO cited by Counsel to home Near 67. Section in attacking Ugandan the diaspora were from publication of false news, very similar to the Zambia’s of the Section 67 in most material aspects. case, the appellants had been charged with publishing false In the OBBO news in a newspaper The report.” Democratic article Republic article titled “Kabila alleged, inter alia, of Congo had paid that the Uganda new in says Gold, President of the of gold to given a large consignment the Government of Uganda as payment for “services rendered” by Uganda in the removal of the former military dictator, the late Mobutu The which appellants the state challenged had their invoked to prosecution prosecute rights guaranteed by the constitution. contending them violated Sese Seko. that their the law several