Bio-technology developments in Uganda: Should we be jubilating?

There is a new Bill in Uganda called the National Biotechnology and Biosafety Bill that is soon to be discussed in Parliament. The hope is that this Bill, when enacted, will offer guidance in the production of genetically modified crops in Uganda. However, there are mixed concerns over this Bill. Regardless of the fact that the Bill was drafted eight years ago and has undergone various changes, it’s having been introduced into Parliament as a Private members Bill is enough to show that consultations and research on the Bill were not adequate enough. Some view it as an Intellectual property development with on-going R&D in the patenting of life forms and experiments on plant variety. Proponents of the Bill also argue that it is an international requirement for all countries carrying out research on genetically modified organisms to have a regulation in place to guide the practice.

Others are more skeptical and are concerned about the impact this may have on food security and the nature of the relationship amongst Farmers’ co-operative societies – not to mention the health concerns upon consumers of genetically modified crops. In the United States, for instance, there are a number of petitions going around (In States such as Illinois) with demands that producers of genetically modified foods should label them as such to enable consumers exercise a better purchasing option. These petitions are mainly derived from fears over the health-associated risks. The Ugandan Daily Monitor newspaper also reports about the detrimental effect that some genetically engineered products have on farm crops and on soil fertility (See: Ugandan farmers do not need GMOs, By Vivian Asedri – March 1, 2013).

Uganda is generally well endowed with fertile soils and good weather conditions for farming. Nonetheless, there is a lot of rhetoric where genetically modified crops are involved: Rather than push for modification and boosting agricultural production through biotechnological means, wouldn’t farmers be served better through improvements in the transportation system; a supply of fertilizers; and, better farming material? Ugandan Farmers also face bad seasons and poor productions every year. Don’t we therefore envisage cases of unfair competition where farmers with genetically modified products will out-compete organic products in the market? Will consumers be able to tell the difference between these products?  

Looking at this issue in context, biotechnology sprung up from developed economies that are more industrial than agro-based. The likes of U.S big companies, such as Monsato, derive their commercial benefits on the Constitutional mandate to “promote the progress of Science . . . by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries”. It is all purely business to them and the patenting system supports this. Developing countries like Uganda on the other hand are - to a great extent - Agro-based, with a large part of the population depending on subsistence farming. As such, bringing in biotechnological developments in their back yards is likely to ultimately destroy their means of survival.

A new land mark in Ugandan Copyright law

The Uganda Performing Rights Society (UPRS), a Collective Management Organization that oversees the administration of copyrights for its members in Uganda, has cause to smile after a landmark judgment that was recently passed in the Commercial Division of the High Court in Uganda.

UPRS dragged mobile giant MTN to court for refusal to pay performance royalties to UPRS after sponsoring a show by the UB40 in February 2008. By way of a flashback, in 1987 the UB40 artists had assigned all their copyright for purposes of effective management to the Performing Rights Society of United Kingdom (PRS-UK). In the Deed of Assignment, PRS-UK was granted the management of all copyrights worldwide. In January 2006, PRS-UK signed a contract of Reciprocal Representation with UPRS. It was by virtue of this Reciprocal arrangement that UPRS demanded for performance royalties from MTN prior to the UB40 show in February 2008 in Kampala, Uganda.

In its defense, MTN rejected any obligation to obtain a license from UPRS. It argued that the individual members of UB40 reserved the exclusive rights to contract and deal with their copyrights without prior authorization of anybody inclusive of PRS-UK and that the Deed of Assignment did not strip them of this right. It further argued that there was no copyright infringement in this case considering that MTN contracted directly with the individual members of UB40 in organizing the concert which effectively makes UPRS an agent of a disclosed principal.   

The Court took into consideration evidence in testimony from the Senior Corporate Counsel for PRS-UK, Ms. Karen Fishman. She testified to the effect that in becoming members of PRS-UK, musicians effectively assign/transfer their performing rights in their copyrights work throughout the world to PRS-UK. The Collecting Society then has the obligation of enforcing the copyrights on behalf of the members.

In scrutinizing the Deeds of Assignment, Court concluded that the UB40 members had indeed assigned all their performing rights for all parts of the world to PRS-UK making PRS-UK the owner of the assigned rights with power to enforce them. Citing the preamble to the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement), the Court further reasoned that the 2006 Copyright legislation in Uganda (particularly sec. 58) was enacted so as to give effect to the guidelines in the TRIPS agreement. As such, the reciprocal agreement between PRS-UK and UPRS effectively conferred the power to enforce the former’s rights to another collecting society in a foreign jurisdiction.

Although UPRS was not able to recover damages due to a technical glitch in its legal maneuvers, the fact that the Commercial Court came out with a pronouncement on the powers of a Collecting Society to demand for royalties in music performances, is a step in the right direction. One of the biggest challenges in the administration and enforcement of copyright work by the UPRS on behalf of its members has always been the inadequate awareness of the limitations and extensions of copyright by persons in the legal profession as well as non-lawyers. The judgment of Uganda Performing Rights Society v. MTN (U) Ltd, Civil Suit No. 287 of 2010, is a landmark in Ugandan copyright jurisprudence in highlighting the avenues music sponsors and organizers have to undertake before staging shows in Uganda and places UPRS at a well-deserved higher pedestal. 

INNOVATIONS: We need to wake up and smell the coffee

Necessity, they say, is the mother of invention. Countries that have made significant strides in their inventions have known this for years. Uganda needs to wake up to this reality. The story in the clip below shows that we are moving forward but there is still much more to be done. Sadly, you don’t get to see much government involvement in encouraging private innovations. We have so much potential as a country rich with traditional knowledge as is depicted in this story. As the International scene continues in its debates about the place of Traditional Knowledge in Intellectual property rights, we as a Nation need to do something about our bright minds and what they know about Traditional Knowledge and innovations. If we don’t wake up soon enough to smell the coffee, someone else will beat us to it.

http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/Girl--19--makes-deworming-tablet/-/688334/1702404/-/item/1/-/2aqlb4/-/index.html