BAT Uganda Ltd. v. Attorney General & Center for Health, Human Rights and Development
British American Tobacco Uganda (BATU), a subsidiary of British American Tobacco, filed a lawsuit in the Constitutional Court of Uganda in 2016 challenging the constitutionality of several key provisions in the Tobacco Control Act, 2015. The Court dismissed the Petition in its entirety and awarded costs to the government. The Court found that the Petition appeared to have been misconceived or brought in bad faith as part of a global strategy to fight tobacco control legislation. The challenged provisions upheld by the Court include provisions:
- requiring 65% or larger picture health warnings; - banning smoking in all indoor public places and workplaces, on all means of public transport, and in specified outdoor public places; - banning all tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship, including product displays at points of sale; - prohibiting the sale of tobacco products in specified places (health institutions, schools, prisons, and other places); - prohibiting the import, manufacture, distribution, and sale of electronic nicotine delivery systems, and shisha, smokeless, and flavored tobacco; - banning the sale of tobacco products through vending machines and through remote means of sale (e.g., mail, internet); and - implementing WHO FCTC Article 5.3.
BAT Uganda Ltd v. Attorney General, et al. No. 46 of 2016, Constitutional Court of Uganda (2019).
Tobacco companies or front groups may challenge any legislative or regulatory measure that affects their business interests. Unlike public interest litigation, these cases seek to weaken health measures. These cases frequently involve the industry proceeding against the government. For example, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional.
Measures to regulate the marketing on tobacco packages. This includes both bans on false, misleading, deceptive packaging, as well as required health warnings on packaging.
(See FCTC Art. 11)
Regulatory measures may lead to an increase in illegal sales, such as counterfeit products. The industry may also argue that such illicit trade will reduce tobacco tax revenue.
Tobacco products that are used by means other than smoking, such as chewing, sniffing, or placing between the teeth and gum. Examples include chewing tobacco, dipping tobacco, snuf, snus, gutkha or gutka, and dissolvable tobacco products.
Electronic and/or battery-operated devices designed to deliver an inhaled dose of nicotine or other substances. Examples include electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), electronic cigars, electronic cigarillos, electronic hookah, vaporizers, and vape pens. ENDS does not include any device or medication approved by the government as nicotine replacement therapy.
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"This petition, I have no doubt in mind is part of a global strategy by the Petitioner
and others engaged in the same or related trade to undermine legislation in order to
expand the boundaries of their trade and increase their profits irrespective of the
adverse health risks their products pose to human population. As already set out
above, the Petitioner admits that its products when used in accordance with their
instructions result into serious adverse health effects to their users and others. They
also concede that, the products they manufacture and sale cause death. Legislation
such as the TCA [Tobacco Control Act] that seeks to protect the public from the adverse effects of the Petitioner's products cannot be said to be unconstitutional for the reasons I have already set out above. The Constitution firmly protects the rights of its citizens,
Parliament by passing the TCA was putting into effect the provisions of the
constitution."
"I have no hesitation in finding that, the legislative objective set out in Section 15 of
Tobacco Control Act is designed to limit smoking and the impacts of tobacco on life
10 and human health is therefore sufficiently important to warrant the respondent to
limit the Petitioner's right to engage in lawfully occupation, trade or business
enriched in Article 40 (2) of Constitution."
"The 1st respondent also has a duty to ensure that every citizen enjoys the right to a
clean and healthy environment. The right to a clean and healthy environment
includes the right to clean air free from tobacco smoke among other air pollutants."
"Since the Petitioner's products when used properly and in accordance with the
proposed instructions of the manufacturer kills, it infringes on the right to life as
enshrined in Article 22 of the Constitution, which requires the State to protect the
30 right to life. The respondent has a duty to protect the citizen's right to life, which
extends to making polices and laws in that regard. The long title and the preamble to
the Tobacco Control Act already set out above clearly illustrates the intention of the
1st respondent in its enactment. The right to life cannot be separated from the
enjoyment of good health."
"While under Article 40(2) the Petitioner has a constitutional right to practice lawful
trade and business, which includes advertising its products packaging and related
business practices in order to make its products attractive to its consumers in this
case adults on one hand, that right is restricted in as far as it prejudices the rights of
others. These others include children, non-smokers, pregnant women and those
who may have quit smoking."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
British American Tobacco Uganda (BATU), a subsidiary of British American Tobacco, filed a lawsuit in the Constitutional Court of Uganda in 2016 challenging the constitutionality of several key provisions in the Tobacco Control Act, 2015. The Court dismissed the Petition in its entirety and awarded costs to the government. The Court found that the Petition appeared to have been misconceived or brought in bad faith as part of a global strategy to fight tobacco control legislation. The challenged provisions upheld by the Court include provisions:
- requiring 65% or larger picture health warnings;
- banning smoking in all indoor public places and workplaces, on all means of public transport, and in specified outdoor public places;
- banning all tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship, including product displays at points of sale;
- prohibiting the sale of tobacco products in specified places (health institutions, schools, prisons, and other places);
- prohibiting the import, manufacture, distribution, and sale of electronic nicotine delivery systems, and shisha, smokeless, and flavored tobacco;
- banning the sale of tobacco products through vending machines and through remote means of sale (e.g., mail, internet); and
- implementing WHO FCTC Article 5.3.