“Dying for A Snack: How Junk Food is Killing Uganda’s Children.”
Shift Media News 
KAMPALA, Uganda June 13 [SHIFTMEDIA] — On a tense Friday morning in the halls of the Court of Appeal, a small but momentous legal battle edged forward. The courtroom, presided over by Deputy Chief Justice Flavian Zeijja, was somber but decisive. After nearly two years of delay, the government was granted five days to file its defense in a landmark constitutional petition filed by the Center for Food and Adequate Living Rights (CEFROHT). The case, rooted in Uganda’s growing crisis of hunger in schools, challenges a controversial government policy that places the burden of school feeding squarely on the shoulders of parents—many of whom cannot afford a daily meal themselves.
The petition, officially known as Constitutional Petition No. 81 of 2023, contests the legality of the government’s school feeding guidelines under the Universal Post-Primary Education and Training (UPPET) framework. The guidelines mandate that parents feed not only their own children but, in some cases, also teachers and vulnerable children whose guardians cannot contribute. Those who fail to comply risk criminal penalties.
For CEFROHT, this is not just a case about policy—it is a fight for survival, dignity, and the future of Uganda’s most vulnerable children.
The Case That Refuses to Be Ignored
Standing outside the courtroom following the adjournment, Joan Kembabazi, lawyer and Program Head of Social Justice and Strategic Litigation at CEFROHT, expressed frustration at the government’s sluggish response.
“We were called for the hearing today, but only upon arrival were we informed that the Attorney General’s office had just reviewed the petition,” she told reporters. “They asked for five more days. It’s disappointing, but we are hopeful this delay won’t deny justice.”
The government’s delay is just the latest in a series of setbacks. The petition was filed in 2023, yet it has taken nearly two years to reach substantive hearings. Still, CEFROHT remains determined.
Dr. David Kabanda, Executive Director of CEFROHT and lead petitioner, welcomed the court’s decision to grant the extension, emphasizing the importance of ensuring a thorough and considered response.
“We’re not just litigating laws—we’re litigating lives,” Dr. Kabanda said. “These guidelines affect thousands of children who face hunger every day. We need to ensure their voices are heard in the strongest possible way.”
A Policy Under Fire
At the heart of the petition is the government’s policy that shifts full responsibility for school feeding to parents. The policy not only neglects the role of the state in providing essential nutrition but penalizes those who fail to comply. For many Ugandan households already battling food insecurity, the policy is not only impractical—it is dangerous.
CEFROHT argues that this violates the constitutional rights of children to food, education, and protection. Under Articles 8A, 20, 22, 24, 30, 32, 34, and 45 of the Ugandan Constitution, the state is duty-bound to uphold social justice, ensure access to basic education, and protect vulnerable populations.
“The idea behind UPE (Universal Primary Education) and USE (Universal Secondary Education) was to ensure that no child is left behind due to poverty,” Kabanda explained. “But how can that be realized if children are starving in classrooms, or worse—dropping out because they fear punishment?”
The Human Cost of Hunger
CEFROHT’s legal team didn’t stop at legal arguments. They conducted an on-the-ground study in a school for orphans receiving minimal or no government assistance. What they found was harrowing.
“There were days when children had nothing to eat,” Kabanda recounted. “The food stores were empty, and students were forced to drink hot water just to soothe their stomachs. The result? Many ran away from school to work—children, in child labor, just to survive.”
PHOTOS/PATRICK JARAMOGI
The statistics support this grim picture. Seventeen percent of Uganda’s school-going children are orphans, many living in child-headed households. An additional 24% cannot access or afford a nutritious diet at home. Nationally, a staggering 66% of Ugandans face moderate to severe food insecurity. These are not mere numbers—they are children with dreams, being quietly starved out of their futures.
Shared Responsibility, Not Abandonment
CEFROHT’s petition doesn’t call for the government to shoulder the entire burden, but for a shared responsibility. While parents who can afford to contribute should do so, the state must support those who cannot—particularly orphans and children from impoverished homes.
“This is about equity, not charity,” said Kembabazi. “Leaving feeding entirely to parents is not just unjust—it’s discriminatory. It penalizes poverty.”
The organization also challenges the criminalization of poverty embedded in the guidelines. Under the current policy, a parent who fails to provide food may face criminal penalties. For many families already teetering on the edge of destitution, this creates fear and shame, deterring them from enrolling children in school altogether.
What’s at Stake
Beyond the courtroom, the implications of this case ripple outward—touching classrooms, kitchens, and playgrounds across the country. Hunger is not a silent issue; it saps concentration, reduces attendance, and fuels dropout rates. And when children drop out, the cycle of poverty deepens.
This case may set a precedent for how Uganda and other developing countries approach school feeding, especially in the wake of economic hardship and rising inequality.
For now, all eyes are on the government’s next move. The court has given five days. CEFROHT and the children they represent have already waited far longer.
As Uganda weighs its legal arguments, the real question looms larger: Can a nation truly offer free education, if its children must first survive hunger to reach the classroom?
This article was produced with support from contributors working on child welfare and legal justice in Uganda. Names and identities of children in the study have been withheld for their protection.
