Creating an Enabling Legal Framework for Breastfeeding Mothers at Workplaces

The Breastfeeding Case – Constitutional Petition No. 22 of 2022

Uganda faces a dilemma as 43% of children born in the country are not exclusively breastfed for the first six months, contrary to recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF, and the Ministry of Health under the Essential Maternal and Newborn Clinical Care Guidelines. Employment is a major barrier to exclusive breastfeeding in Uganda because the legal framework fails to regulate breastfeeding in workplaces. As a result, working women must choose between employment and continued breastfeeding.

Article 33(3) of the Constitution obligates the government to protect women and their rights, recognizing their unique status and natural maternal functions in society. While women have a right to work, their maternal roles—including breastfeeding—must be accommodated.

However, Section 56 of the Employment Act provides only 60 working days of maternity leave, during which women can exclusively breastfeed. Once this period lapses, working mothers lack legal support for continued breastfeeding. This gap risks children missing out on WHO-recommended exclusive breastfeeding, contributing to undernutrition, which accounts for 45% of annual child deaths. Furthermore, poor nutrition stunts human capital development, leading to an unhealthy workforce and reduced productivity.

To address this, the Center for Food and Adequate Living Rights (CEFROHT), alongside advocates Nankinga Catherine (a working breastfeeding mother) and Nabbaale Tracy (a human rights and social justice lawyer), filed a petition in Uganda’s Constitutional Court. They challenged Section 56 of the Employment Act, arguing it violates constitutional rights to life, food, and the highest attainable standard of health. The petitioners contend that the lack of workplace breastfeeding support constitutes a human rights violation.

The petitioners seek orders to strike out Section 56 of the Employment Act, amend the law to include workplace breastfeeding provisions, or mandate government guidelines for breastfeeding support in workplaces.

This case has already spurred progress, pressuring the government to propose the Employment (Amendment) Bill, currently awaiting presidential assent. However, the bill does not extend the 60-day maternity leave. Instead, it offers 30-minute breastfeeding breaks every two hours or reduced daily working hours for an additional 60 days.

CEFROHT argues these measures are impractical, as exclusive breastfeeding requires feeding on demand. Reduced hours or scheduled breaks cannot guarantee a mother’s availability when her infant needs to feed, potentially forcing alternatives that undermine exclusive breastfeeding.

For this reason, CEFROHT continues using this case to advocate for extended maternity leave as the best solution to ensure all mothers can exclusively breastfeed their children.