In the first week of February 2015, the topic has been Sanyu Robinah Mweruka and her leaked sex tape. Mwereuka was hither to a news anchor on Bukedde’s famed news bulletin Agataliko Nfufu and a host on one of the station’s most popular programme Omuntu Wabantu.

Following the unfortunate event, Mweruka was allegedly ‘fired’ from Bukedde after what was rumored to have been a ‘crisis meeting’ held by the employers where they agreed to terminate her employment contract.

It is a given that another person’s sex tape will leak. Perhaps that person’s employer just like Mweruka’s will want to terminate the employment contract of that particular employee because well such acts bring “disrepute to the image of the company/ employer.” But is that fair? Some people have argued it is while others insist it is not.

The proponents of the former position argue that in the modern world, companies should be protective of their brands and any employee whose actions are seen to be causing detriment to that image should be shown the exit or else the company’s reputation is dented, and it loses the trust of its esteemed customers.

On the other end the proponents of the later position front the right to privacy as the shield in the matter. According to the people who subscribe to this notion, everyone has a right to privacy and anything that happens between two consenting adults under the sheets should not be a reason to punish them even when such matters get into the domain of public consumption.

Looking at the employment law in Uganda may give us some interesting perspectives but won’t provide the straight- jacket answers that some of us hoped to get.

Article 40(1) of the 1995 Constitution requires Parliament to enact laws to provide for the rights of persons to work under satisfactory, safe and healthy conditions. Note that satisfactory conditions of work include having some form of job security.

In 2006 Parliament enacted the Employment Act which along with a host of other laws like the Workers Compensation Act, The National Social Security Fund Act, Occupational Safety and Health Act, 2006, Labour Unions Act, and  The Employment (Sexual Harassment) Regulations, 2012 govern issues of employment in Uganda.

S.69 of the Employment Act provides that no employer has the right to terminate the contract of employment without notice or with less notice than that to which the employee is entitled. S.58 of the Employment Act provides that if an employee has been in continuous service for more than 5 years but less than 10 years with the same employer they are entitled to two months’ notice before termination of their contracts.

For a case like Mweruka an employee of Vision Group since 2009 or even earlier, more than five years ago, ideally she is entitled to two months’ notice before termination of her contract or at least payment in lieu of the notice.

Besides, the employer can only summarily terminate (terminate without notice) the contract of employment in cases where the employee fundamentally breaks the terms of his/ her employment contract. But in a case such as Mweruka’s where a sex tape leaked, was there a fundamental term in her employment contract relating to leaking of sex tapes, however remote? One would have to look at the employment contract itself to construe and determine that but I doubt it was.

If it was not, then Mweruka’s issue could be looked at from the perspective of the disciplinary rules of the employer. In this case the question then becomes, does Vision Group of Companies have any rules that bar employees from engaging in any form of sexual promiscuity and how then are those disciplinary rules framed or even enforced? Is it that even if an employee engaged in a sexually promiscuous act before he/she was employed by Vision Group, that employee is supposed to suffer consequences like those that allegedly befell Mweruka in cases where for instance the sex tape of the promiscuous act is shared later when under employment? But even then, how do you prove that the act was during or before the employment. Isn’t it at such a point that the rule becomes unfair?

S.62 of the Employment Act provides for the disciplinary penalties that an employer may take against their employee and these include a written warning, a reprimand and a suspension from work. The ultimate penalty is a dismissal off course. An employee is entitled to impose a penalty only in circumstances where it is reasonable to do so and in determining on what is and what is not reasonable one of the factors to consider is the code of Discipline set out in the first schedule of the Act.

However, before considering the provisions of the code of Discipline, we ought to be reminded that before any action to dismiss an employee is taken, the rules of natural justice as well as S. 66 of the Employment Act require that the employee should be notified and given a fair hearing in the matter. Therefore before Mweruka is fired, she has to be accorded the opportunity to be heard in her defence.

The Disciplinary Code under the Employment Act requires all organizations that employ people to have disciplinary rules which should do not discriminate people based on marital status among other considerations like sex and color. This then creates the question of why some organizations which have taken it upon themselves to govern the morals of their workers tend to be less strict or formulate rules that are less strict on unmarried workers engaging in any form of sexual promiscuity as opposed to their married counter parts.

But even then and drifting away from the legal considerations, couldn’t it be arguably hypocritical for a company to think that because Mweruka’s sex tape leaked, her moral standing is questionable and therefore she can’t continue as the reader/face of Agataliko Nfufu? Apparently she reads the news bulletin dressed in a Gomesi  for ‘cultural and moral considerations’ and ‘therefore if she continues to read the news bulletin, it will dent the image of Agataliko Nfufu as a bulletin that promotes culture and morals in our society’ argues one of my friends who  think Mweruka Mweruka should have been dismissed. Now, that’s ridiculous.

Since when did Agataliko Nfufu become a symbol of cultural and moral preservation? A good percentage of what it show cases in its bulletin are footages of women undressing and exchanging obscenities while fighting due to cheap domestic squabbles in given neighborhoods let alone the dead bodies of the victims of gruesome murders. Isn’t that an absolute abuse of the sanctity of humanity or even an affront against the very morals they purportedly preserve?

Someone might be missing the point here. Isn’t this the kind of double standard application of our values and virtues that is actually killing our society. It is deplorable.

Unfortunately, we relish in the misguided conception that when one of us leaves the fold and wonders off, our job is to throw stones at them and send them to hell. But before we go out removing specks in other people’s eyes, let us check and find if we do not have that log in our eyes that is blurring our vision and therefore causing us to stumble on judgments. We are like the Pharisees. We love to throw stones but many of us cannot confidently say they have not sinned and therefore have the right to cast the first stone.

On the contrary, I guess, we should all stand by Mweruka’s side and tell her, your sins are forgiven,  go ye and sin no more.