DOCSLIB.ORG

Malawi Capital Resentencing Project, 150 Prisoners Have Been Heard on Resentencing, and 140 Have Received New Judgments

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Malawi Capital Resentencing Project, 150 Prisoners Have Been Heard on Resentencing, and 140 Have Received New Judgments Introduction to Compendium..........................................................................................................................1 Sentencing Guidelines - Case Digest..............................................................................................................5 The Republic v. Wintala Chioko................................................................................................................17 The Republic v. Margret Nadzi Makolija.....................................................................................................46 The State v. Laston Mukiwa.........................................................................................................................54 The Republic v. Limbikani Wilson Mtambo ...................................................................................................58 The Republic v. William Mkandawire .........................................................................................................63 The Republic v. Funsani Payenda.................................................................................................................75 The Republic v. Lackson Dzimbiri.............................................................................................................108 The Republic v. Chiliko Senti.....................................................................................................................122 The Republic v. Francisco James ...............................................................................................................134 The Republic v. Gilbert Masiye.............................................................................................................141 The Republic v. Mabvuto Elias ..................................................................................................................147 The Republic v. Clitus Chimwala...............................................................................................................153 The Republic v. James Galeta.....................................................................................................................156 The Republic v. Richard Chipoka............................................................................................................162 The Republic v. Bisket Kumitumbu ...........................................................................................................172 The Republic v. Kachepa Tsogolani.....................................................................................................176 The Republic v. Kingsley Karonga..........................................................................................................185 The Republic v. Edson Khwalala ...............................................................................................................193 The Republic v. Richard Maulidi and Julius Khanawa ..............................................................................202 The Republic v. Geoffrey Mponda ..........................................................................................................208 The Republic v. Richard Jiba James, Charles Dick, Charles Nyalapa and Gray Zimba ..............218 The Republic v. Venita Maiche ..................................................................................................................233 The Republic v. Gift Ngwira.........................................................................................................................269 The Republic v. Michael Khonje................................................................................................................275 The Republic v. Stoneki Kachala ...............................................................................................................282 The Republic v. Charles Khoviwa..............................................................................................................288 The State v. Stenala Nashele, Edwin Uladi and Mkoma Kaputeni..................................................296 The Republic v. Jack Makasu and Daniel Teputepu ..............................................................................300 The Republic v. Patson Mtepa .................................................................................................................304 The Republic v. Godfrey Thawe..............................................................................................................310 The Republic v. Peter Kusaina and Amosi Augustine Shama ........................................................................314 The Republic v. Abraham Phonya ...........................................................................................................320 Introduction to Compendium In Kafantayeni v. Attorney General of Malawi, Constitutional Case No. 12 of 2005 (hereinafter, Kafantayeni), the High Court struck down the mandatory death penalty on the grounds that it violated the accused’s constitutional rights to a fair trial, access to justice, and protection from inhuman treatment or punishment. The Supreme Court of Appeal agreed with the rationale of Kafantayeni in Jacob v The Republic, MSCA Crim. App. No. 18 of 2006, noting “that offenses of murder differ, and will always differ, so greatly from each other that we think it is wrong and unjust that they should attract the same penalty or punishment”. In Mclemonce Yasini v The Republic, MSCA Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2005, the Supreme Court of Appeal held that all persons sentenced to the mandatory death penalty were entitled to sentence rehearings before the High Courts, where they could present mitigating evidence relating to the personal circumstances of the offender as well as the circumstances of the offence. Further, in Chimenya v The Republic, MSCA Crim App No. 8 of 2006, the Court stated that before imposing sentence, the courts should take into account “the manner in which the murder was committed, the means used to commit the offence, the personal circumstances of the victim, the personal circumstances of the accused and what might have motivated the commission of the crime”. At the time of the Kafantayeni judgment, approximately 190 prisoners were incarcerated in Zomba Central Prison after being sentenced to death pursuant to the now-unconstitutional mandatory regime. The affected prisoners included 23 prisoners on death row as well as approximately 164 men and 4 women whose mandatory death sentences had been commuted to life in prison by the President. These numbers dwindled in subsequent years, as certain prisoners died, were released, or had their sentences reduced on appeal. In 2013, the Malawi Human Rights Commission (MHRC) initiated a resentencing project to ensure that the affected prisoners were given an opportunity to present mitigating evidence at a new sentencing hearing. With the support of Tilitonse Fund, the MHRC brought together a coalition of stakeholders to carry out the project. They included the Director of Public Prosecutions; the Judiciary; the Legal Aid Department; the Law Society; the Paralegal Advisory Services Institute; the Centre for Human Rights Education, Advice and Assistance; Chancellor College School of Law Malawi; Professor Babcock of Cornell University School of Law; and the international legal charity Reprieve. The stakeholders involved in the project came together to honour and implement the court’s directive in Kafantayeni, thereby demonstrating Malawi’s commitment to the rule of law, the values entrenched in the Malawian Constitution and the country’s international human rights obligations. The stakeholders’ common aims were to ensure access to justice for prisoners that had received an unconstitutional sentence; to develop, in the course of the resentencing process, best practices in sentencing for capital cases following the abolition of the mandatory death penalty; to build capacity for the handling of capital cases by training key stakeholders in the criminal justice system; and to facilitate community sensitization and offender reintegration through community outreach and education. Sentence rehearings began in February 2015. As of now, March 27, 2017, the High Courts have conducted 140 hearings. One hundred fourteen prisoners have been released from prison after serving their sentences; another twenty-six remain incarcerated but will be released in the future. Ten prisoners are awaiting judgment, and twenty-five have not yet received a resentencing hearing. In connection with the resentencing project, the High Courts have issued at least sixty written judgments addressing the nature of mitigating evidence, the issue of missing case files, burden of proof, and other matters. These judgments provide the most comprehensive jurisprudence on the factors relevant to capital sentencing in Malawi, not only in the resentencing project but in capital prosecutions more broadly. This publication brings together thirty-three judgments that explain the mitigating and aggravating evidence presented in each case to justify the sentence imposed. Some of these judgments discuss offenders’ rights under the Malawi Constitution and international law; others address the rights of victims; and several debate the relevance of post-conviction conduct in the capital sentencing process. Among the themes addressed in the judgments are the following: A death sentence is only appropriate if the prosecution has rebutted the presumption in favour of life by proving
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Uganda's Constitution of 1995 with Amendments Through 2017
    PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:53 constituteproject.org Uganda's Constitution of 1995 with Amendments through 2017 This complete constitution has been generated from excerpts of texts from the repository of the Comparative Constitutions Project, and distributed on constituteproject.org. constituteproject.org PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:53 Table of contents Preamble . 14 NATIONAL OBJECTIVES AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY . 14 General . 14 I. Implementation of objectives . 14 Political Objectives . 14 II. Democratic principles . 14 III. National unity and stability . 15 IV. National sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity . 15 Protection and Promotion of Fundamental and other Human Rights and Freedoms . 15 V. Fundamental and other human rights and freedoms . 15 VI. Gender balance and fair representation of marginalised groups . 15 VII. Protection of the aged . 16 VIII. Provision of adequate resources for organs of government . 16 IX. The right to development . 16 X. Role of the people in development . 16 XI. Role of the State in development . 16 XII. Balanced and equitable development . 16 XIII. Protection of natural resources . 16 Social and Economic Objectives . 17 XIV. General social and economic objectives . 17 XV. Recognition of role of women in society . 17 XVI. Recognition of the dignity of persons with disabilities . 17 XVII. Recreation and sports . 17 XVIII. Educational objectives . 17 XIX. Protection of the family . 17 XX. Medical services . 17 XXI. Clean and safe water . 17 XXII. Food security and nutrition . 18 XXIII. Natural disasters . 18 Cultural Objectives . 18 XXIV. Cultural objectives . 18 XXV. Preservation of public property and heritage . 18 Accountability . 18 XXVI. Accountability . 18 The Environment .
    [Show full text]
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995
    CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA, 1995. Arrangement of the Constitution. Preliminary matter. Arrangement of objectives. Arrangement of chapters and schedules. Arrangement of articles. Preamble. National objectives and directive principles of State policy. Chapters. Schedules. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA, 1995. National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy. Arrangement of Objectives. Objective General. I. Implementation of objectives. Political objectives. II. Democratic principles. III. National unity and stability. IV. National sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. Protection and promotion of fundamental and other human rights and freedoms. V. Fundamental and other human rights and freedoms. VI. Gender balance and fair representation of marginalised groups. VII. Protection of the aged. VIII. Provision of adequate resources for organs of Government. IX. The right to development. X. Role of the people in development. XI. Role of the State in development. XII. Balanced and equitable development. XIII. Protection of natural resources. Social and economic objectives. XIV. General social and economic objectives. XV. Recognition of the role of women in society. XVI. Recognition of the dignity of persons with disabilities. XVII. Recreation and sports. XVIII. Educational objectives. XIX. Protection of the family. XX. Medical services. XXI. Clean and safe water. 1 XXII. Food security and nutrition. XXIII. Natural disasters. Cultural objectives. XXIV. Cultural objectives. XXV. Preservation of public property and heritage. Accountability. XXVI. Accountability. The environment. XXVII. The environment. Foreign policy objectives. XXVIII. Foreign policy objectives. Duties of a citizen. XXIX. Duties of a citizen. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA, 1995. Arrangement of Chapters and Schedules. Chapter 1. The Constitution. 2. The Republic.
    [Show full text]
  • Revisiting the Media Freedom Debate at Uganda's Independence Golden Jubilee
    REVISITING THE MEDIA FREEDOM DEBATE AT UGANDA'S INDEPENDENCE GOLDEN JUBILEE Michael Kakooza REALITY CHECK Revisiting the media freedom debate at Uganda’s independence golden jubilee Written by Dr. Michael Kakooza The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung and Uganda Media Development Foundation but rather those of the author. REVISITING THE MEDIA FREEDOM DEBATE AT UGANDA’S INDEPENDENCE GOLDEN JUBILEE i REALITY CHECK Revisiting the media freedom debate at Uganda’s independence golden jubilee Published by: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, Uganda 51. A Prince Charles Drive, Kololo P.O. Box 647, Kampala, Tel. +256 414 254611 www.kas.de ISBN: 978 9970 153 08 4 In partnership with: Uganda Media Development Foundation Plot 976 Mugerwa Road. Bukoto P.O.Box 21778 Kampala, Tel. +256 414 532083 www.umdf.co.ug © Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung e.v. 2012 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung. ii REVISITING THE MEDIA FREEDOM DEBATE AT UGANDA’S INDEPENDENCE GOLDEN JUBILEE Table of Contents Foreword ...................................................................................... 1 Preface ............................................................................................3 Profile of the Author ....................................................................... 6 Acknowledgements .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
    United Nations CCPR/SP/89 International Covenant on Distr.: General 7 May 2018 Civil and Political Rights Original: English Meeting of States parties Thirty-sixth meeting New York, 14 June 2018 Item 5 of the provisional agenda Election, in accordance with articles 28–34 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of nine members of the Human Rights Committee to replace those whose terms are due to expire on 31 December 2018 Election of nine members of the Human Rights Committee to replace those whose terms are due to expire on 31 December 2018 Note by the Secretary-General 1. In conformity with articles 28 to 32 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the thirty-sixth meeting of States parties to the Covenant is to be held at United Nations Headquarters on 14 June 2018 for the purpose of electing nine members of the Human Rights Committee from a list of persons nominated by States parties (sect. II), to replace those whose terms of office will expire on 31 December 2018 (sect. I). I. Members of the Committee whose terms will expire on 31 December 2018 Name of member Country of nationality Mr. Yadh Ben Achour Tunisia Ms. Sarah Cleveland United States of America Mr. Olivier de Frouville France Mr. Yuji Iwasawa Japan Ms. Ivana Jelić Montenegro Mr. Duncan Laki Muhumuza Uganda Ms. Photini Pazartzis Greece Mr. Mauro Politi Italy Ms. Margo Waterval Suriname GE.18-07172 (E) 220518 230518 CCPR/SP/89 II. Persons nominated by States parties 2. In accordance with article 30 (2) of the Covenant, the Secretary-General, in a note verbale dated 15 December 2017, invited the States parties to submit, in conformity with article 29 of the Covenant, their nominations for the election of nine members of the Committee by 9 April 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Abolition of the Mandatory Death Penalty in Africa: a Comparative Constitutional Analysis
    THE ABOLITION OF THE MANDATORY DEATH PENALTY IN AFRICA: A COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS Andrew Novak* 1. INTRODUCTION The mandatory death penalty for the crime of murder is in rapid retreat worldwide. Originally diffused to the common law countries of the Caribbean, Africa, and South and Southeast Asia by way of the British Empire, the penalty has been found unconstitutional and incompatible with human rights norms in at least ten Caribbean nations since the year 2000. A new wave of litigation has appeared in the postcolonial common law nations of East and Southern Africa, and courts in Malawi, Uganda, and now Kenya have found an automatic sentence of death unconstitutional and have replaced mandatory schemes with discretionary ones that allow consideration of mitigating factors in the capital sentencing process.1 The resulting criminal justice regimes operate in closer conformity with international human rights norms and explicitly adopt these norms in their domestic legal systems. This harmonization of death penalty regimes across borders is no accident: it was the deliberate intention of a small network of international anti- death penalty advocates to create a body of transnational jurisprudence from which to draw in bringing incremental challenges in national courts.2 By initially petitioning the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the Inter- American Human Rights System to find the mandatory death penalty incompatible with human rights treaty obligations, this core of advocates succeeded in developing a corpus of persuasive reasoning on which they could * Adjunct Professor of African Law, American University Washington College of Law. The author has a Juris Doctor, Boston University School of Law, and a Master of Science (Hons.), African Politics, London School of Oriental and African Studies.
    [Show full text]
  • The Republic of Uganda in the Supreme Court of Uganda, at Kampala (Coram: Katureebe; Tumwesigye; Kisaakye; Arach-Amoko; Odoki,Tsekooko; Okello; Jj.S.C.)
    THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA, AT KAMPALA (CORAM: KATUREEBE; TUMWESIGYE; KISAAKYE; ARACH-AMOKO; ODOKI,TSEKOOKO; OKELLO; JJ.S.C.). CONSTITUTIONAL APPEAL NO. 05 OF 2011 B E T W E E N AMOOTI GODFREY NYAKAANA :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPELLANT AND 1. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY 2. ATTORNEY GENERAL 3. ADVOCATES COALITION FOR DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT 4. ENVIRONMENT ALERT ::::RESPONDENTS 5. GREENWATCH 6. UGANDA WILDLIFE AUTHORITY 7. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK (Appeal from the Judgments and Orders of the Constitutional Court at Kampala, A.E. Mpagi- Bahigeine, A. Twinomujuni, C.N.B. Kitumba, C.K. Byamugisha and S.B. Kavuma, JJA, dated 9th November 2009 in Constitutional Petition No. 03 of 2005). JUDGMENT OF B. M. KATUREEBE, CJ. This appeal raises issues pertaining to environmental protection vis-à-vis individual property rights, and the Constitutionality of certain sections of the National Environment Act. BACKGROUND. The appellant filed a Constitutional Petition in the Constitutional Court (Constitutional Petition No. 03 of 2005) under the provisions of Article 137 (3) of the Constitution and Rule 3 of the Rules of that Court. In that Petition, the appellant challenged the Constitutionality of Sections 67, 68 and 70 of the National Environment Act (Cap 153) Laws of Uganda. He contended that the impugned sections contravene and are inconsistent with Articles 21, 24, 26, 28, 42, 44, 237 and 259 of the Constitution. He further contended that the impugned sections also contravene and are inconsistent with various international Human Rights Conventions and Instruments entrenched in the Constitution under Articles 20 and 45 of the Constitution. The appellant sought declaration and orders for redress.
    [Show full text]
  • The Republic of Uganda in the Supreme Court of Uganda at Kampala
    f' THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA [CORAM:KATUREEBE,C.J; TUMWESIGYE; KISAAKYE; ARACH-AMOKO, 5 NSHIMYE, MWANGUSYA, OPIO-AWERI, MWONDHA, TmATEMWA- EK1RIKUBINZA, J JSC} CIVIL APPLICATION NO 03 OF 2016 [Arising from Election Petition No. 01 of2016] 10 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS AMICUS CURIAE BY THE APPLICANTS HEREIN ARISING FROM ELECTION PETITION NO. 01 OF 2016. 15 BE1WEEN 1. FOUNDATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS INITIATNE. 20 2. UGANDA ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN LAWYERS (FIDA UGANDA) 3. CHAPrER FOUR UGANDA 4. HUMAN RIGHTS NETWORK UGANDA 5. CENTRE FOR CONSTITIITIONAL GOVERNANCE 25 6. KITUO CHA KATIBA, EASTERN AFRICAN CENTRE FOR CONSTITIITIONAL DEVELOPMENT 7. LEGAL AID SERVICE PROVIDERS NE1WORK UGANDA 8. TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANTS 30 AND AMAMA· MBABAZI··············································.............•.........•....••.•.......•...••.....•.... -] PE'I'll'IONER 1 ; ,,'" ". } 1. YOWERI KAGUTA MUSEVENI 2. ELECTORAL COMMISSION 3 .~A 'TIORNEY GENERAL ........................•.........•...............................•.....•....... ] RESPONDENTS 5 RULING OF THE COURT This application was brought by 8 applicants which are Civil Society Organizations. The applicants are non-governmental organizations and Civil Society Organizations. They were 10 accredited by the Electoral Commission as Election Observers. Some of the applicants are members of the Citizen Coalition for Electoral Democracy (CCEDU) and others are members of Citizens Coalition for Election Observers Network (CEON). The applicants are seeking leave of this Court to be admitted as V 15 Amici Curiae in Presidential Election Petition No. 01 of 2016, permission to file amicus curiae brief in the form of written submissions and filing any further materials that the Court may deem fit. The applicants are also seeking such further orders that this Court may deem appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights and Democracy [In Nigeria]: Agenda for a New Era
    AfriHeritage Occasional Paper Vol 1. No1. 2019 AfriHeritage Occasional Paper Vol 1. No1. 2019 HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY [IN NIGERIA]: AGENDA FOR A NEW ERA By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu 1 AfriHeritage Occasional Paper Vol 1. No1. 2019 Contents Contents ............................................................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 3 2. MEDIATING MULTI-DIMENSIONAL POLARITIES: IN SEARCH OF OUR BIG IDEA . 5 (a) Democracy, Counting and Accounting: The Idea of Political Numeracy ........... 8 (b) Democracy: The idea of Legitimacy .............................................................................. 11 (c) Human Rights: The Idea of Political Values ................................................................ 16 (d) Democracy and Digital Frisson: The Idea of Good Civic Manners ..................... 21 (a) Mis-Managing Diversity & Institutionalising Discrimination ............................... 28 (b) A Country that Cannot Count ......................................................................................... 34 (c) The Destruction of Accountability Institutions .......................................................... 40 (d) Legitimising Illegitimacy .................................................................................................... 44 4. ADDRESSING NIGERIA’S MULTIPLE CRISES OF STATEHOOD AND FRAGMENTATION
    [Show full text]
  • Foreign Direct Investment in Uganda and Rwanda; a Cross-Country Analysis
    M.Sc. International Business Foreign Direct Investment in Uganda and Rwanda; a Cross-Country Analysis Christoph Kissel 15/12/2013 M.Sc. Thesis Foreign Direct Investment in Uganda and Rwanda; a Cross-Country Analysis M.Sc. International Business Reykjavik University Author Christoph Kissel Examiner Prof. Dr. Gerhard Apfelthaler Date December 15, 2013 Keywords: Uganda, Rwanda, Foreign Direct Investment, Globalization, Economic and Political Risk Declaration of Research Work Integrity This work has not previously been accepted in substance for any degree and is not being concurrently submitted in candidature of any degree. This thesis is the result of my own investigations, except where otherwise stated. Other sources are acknowledged by giving explicit references. A bibliography is appended. By signing the present document, I confirm and agree that I have read RU’s ethics code of conduct and fully understand the consequences of violating these rules in regards of my thesis. December 15, 2013, Leonberg, Germany Christoph Kissel (Kennitala 050182-3129) i Abstract This thesis has been written to delineate motivational factors and country-related opportunities and constraints of foreign investors who run a subsidiary in Rwanda or Uganda with the intention of discussing why foreign entities are investing in either of the two countries and what market entry modes and strategies are used. This document’s results intend to help foreign enterprises in deciding why, how and where either of the two countries’ markets could be entered via FDI. The first chapter contains the study’s objectives, its research questions and problem statement – which is: “if drivers exceed restraining forces, foreign entities choose Rwanda and/or Uganda as a destination for FDI”.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 SCR PERUMAL V. JANAKI (Criminal Appeal No.169 of 2014)
    [2014] 1 S.C.R. 591 592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 1 S.C.R. PERUMAL A A initiate proceedings against respondent on the basis of the v. complaint of appellant in accordance with law – Penal Code, JANAKI 1860 – ss.191, 193. (Criminal Appeal No.169 of 2014) On a complaint of one ‘N’ that the appellant enticed JANUARY 20, 2014. her of marrying her and had sexual interaction and on B B account of that ‘N’ became pregnant, a case was [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI AND J. CHELAMESWAR, J.] registered against the appellant under Sections 417 and 506(i) IPC by the respondent-sub-inspector. The CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: respondent thereafter filed a charge sheet with an assertion that the appellant was responsible for making ss.195, 340 – Private complaint – Maintainability – C C ‘N’ pregnant. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint and Private complaint against respondent-police officer by appellant was acquitted of both the charges. The High appellant praying for trial of the respondent u/s.193, IPC on Court affirmed the same. Thereafter, the appellant filed a the ground that the appellant was prosecuted in a criminal complaint under Section 190, Cr.P.C. praying that the case on the basis of a palpably false statement made by the respondent be tried for an offence under Section 193 IPC. respondent – Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the D D The complaint was dismissed on the ground that in view ground that in view of ss.195 and 340, the complaint of the of Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Study of Judicial Review in Uganda & South
    Concordia University - Portland CU Commons Faculty Scholarship School of Law 2009 African Courts and Separation of Powers: A Comparative Study of Judicial Review in Uganda & South Joseph M. Isanga Concordia University School of Law, jisanga@cu-portland.edu Follow this and additional works at: http://commons.cu-portland.edu/lawfaculty Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Law and Society Commons, Public Law and Legal Theory Commons, and the Transnational Law Commons CU Commons Citation Joseph M. Isanga, African Courts and Separation of Powers: A Comparative Study of Judicial Review in Uganda & South, 2 Nw. Interdisc. L. Rev. 69, 102 (2009). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at CU Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of CU Commons. For more information, please contact libraryadmin@cu-portland.edu. AFRICAN COURTS AND SEPARATION OF POWERS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN UGANDA & SOUTH Dr. Joseph M. Isanga, LL.B, LL.M, J.S.D.* Ave MariaSchool of Law Abstract: Achieving political stability in a transitional democracy is a fundamental goal, the resoluteness of which is in part maintained by courts of judicial review that are independent from political bias and devoid of deference to traditionally more powerful branches of government. The recent democratic transitions occurring in the African nations of South Africa and Uganda provide a unique, contemporary insight into the formation of a constitutional jurisprudence. This study is an examination of pivotal cases decided by the Constitutional Courts of South Africa and Uganda, the roles that these decisions play in political stability, and the potential for political bias in the interpretation of a newborn constitution.
    [Show full text]
  • Uganda, Supreme Court
    3rdCongress of the World Conference on Constitutional Justice ‘Constitutional Justice and Social Integration’ 28 September – 1 October 2014 Seoul, Republic of Korea Questionnaire Reply by the Supreme Court of Uganda Questionnaire A. Court description Introduction The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and the final court of appeal. It is also the appellate Constitutional Court. I. Basic texts The Supreme Court derives its powers from the Constitution of Uganda. II. Composition, procedure and organisation According to Article 131 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is duly constituted at any sitting if it consists of an uneven number not being less than five members of the court. When hearing appeals from decisions of the Court of Appeal sitting as a Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court consists of a full bench of all members of the Supreme Court; and where any of them is not able to attend, the President, for that purpose, appoints an acting justice to sit in his or her place. The Chief Justice presides at each sitting of the Supreme Court, and in the absence of the Chief Justice, the most senior member of the court as constituted shall preside. Amendments were made through The Judicature (Amendment) Act 2011, which now states that the Supreme Court of Uganda shall consist of the Chief Justice and ten Justices of the Supreme Court. III. Jurisdiction/ Powers The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal. An appeal lies to the Supreme Court from such decisions of the Court of Appeal as are prescribed by law. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeal sitting as a constitutional court is entitled to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision.
    [Show full text]