Consolidated Constitutional Petitions
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
5 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UGANDA 10 SITTING AT MBALE CONSOLIDATED CONSTITUTIONAL PETITIONS 1. CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 49 OF 2017 15 Male Mabirizi Kiwanuka :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Petitioner Versus 20 The Attorney General of Uganda :::::::::::: Respondent AND 2. CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 3 OF 2018 25 Uganda Law Society ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Petitioner Versus 1 | P a g e 5 The Attorney General of Uganda:::::::::::::: Respondent AND 3. CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 5 OF 2018 10 1. Hon. Karuhanga Kafureka Gerald 2. Hon. Odur Jonathan 3. Hon. Munyagwa S. Mubarak 4. Hon. Ssewanyana Allan 15 :::::::::::Petitioners 5. Hon. Ssemuju Ibrahim 6. Hon. Winne Kiiza VERSUS 20 The Attorney General of Uganda:::::::::::::::::Respondent AND 4. CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 10 OF 2018 1. Prosper Businge 25 2. Herbert Mugisa 3. Thomas Mugara Guma ::::::::::::::::::::::::Petitioners 4. Pastor Vincent Sande 30 Versus The Attorney General::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Respondent AND 35 5. CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 13 OF 2018 2 | P a g e 5 Abaine Jonathan Buregyeya ::::::::::::::::::::::::::Petitioner Versus The Attorney General of Uganda::::::::::::::::::::Respondent Coram: Hon. Mr. Justice Alfonse C. Owiny-dollo, DCJ 10 Hon. Mr. Justice Remmy Kasule, JA/JCC Hon. Mr. Justice Kenneth Kakuru, JA/JCC Hon. Mr. Justice Cheborion Barishaki, JA/JCC Hon. Lady Justice Elizabeth Musoke, JA/JCC 15 JUDGMENT OF HON. JUSTICE REMMY KASULE Background: The above five Constitutional Petitions were consolidated for the purpose of being heard and determined together due to the 20 similarity of the issues each one raised. The Constitutional Court, in its endeavour to make Ugandans, outside Kampala where the Constitutional Court has hitherto sat to determine Constitutional issues, felt it appropriate that this time, the Court determines these issues away from Kampala, so that 25 Ugandans elsewhere also experience how the Constitutional Court goes about determining Constitutional issues that have a bearing upon the governance structure of the country. The Court thus decided to determine the above five Constitutional Petitions at the High Court, Mbale. 3 | P a g e 5 Other Constitutional Petitions, with similarity of issues, like those in the consolidated ones, were also listed for hearing in Mbale with the consolidated petitions. These were: 1. Constitutional Petition No. 41 of 2014 Benjamin Alipanga ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Petitioner 10 Versus The National Resistance Movement 15 Justine Lumumba Richard Todwong Rose Namayanja ::::::::::::Respondents Kenneth Omona The Attorney General of Uganda 20 The National Resistance Movement 2. Constitutional Petition No. 34 of 2017 Centre for Constitutional Governance Legal Brains Trust (LBT) :::::::::::::::Petitioners 25 Miria R.K. Matembe Versus Attorney General :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Respondent 3. Constitutional Petition No. 37 of 2017 30 4 | P a g e 5 Advocates for Human Rights, Peace and Development(AHUPED)::::::::::::::::::::::: Petitioner Versus Hon. Raphael Magyezi Attorney General ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Respondents 10 4. Constitutional Petition No. 44 of 2017 Dr. Abed Bwanika ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Petitioner Versus The Attorney General :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Respondent 15 All the above Constitutional Petitions were called up for hearing on 09.04.2018 and were dismissed with no order as to costs either on the ground that the parties to the petitions and their respective Counsel were absent or that the parties had withdrawn the petition(s). 20 The Consolidated Constitutional Petitions, the subject of this Judgment, arise from the enactment by Parliament of a member’s (Hon. Raphael Magyezi) private Bill: The Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2017 (The Magyezi Bill) which was finally enacted by Parliament into The Constitution (Amendment) Act, No. 1 of 25 2018 (herein to be referred to as “The Act”). This Act amended the Constitution in these areas: First, as to qualification for election as President of Uganda, or as a district chairperson of one being “not less than thirty-five years and not more than seventy-five years of age” hitherto contained 5 | P a g e 5 in Articles 102 and 183 (2) (b) of the Constitution was removed. Sections 3 and 7 of the Act effected this amendment. Second, by amending Articles 77(3) and 181 (4) of the Constitution, The Act extended the term of the existing Parliament and Local Governments, and those to be elected in future, from five to seven 10 years. Sections 2,6,8 and 10 of the Act effected these amendments. Third, the Act amended Article 105(2), to the effect that a person shall not hold office of President for more than two terms and that this Clause shall only be amended if the amendment Bill to that effect is supported at the second and third reading in Parliament by 15 not less than two thirds of all members of Parliament and also after the amendment has been approved through a referendum by the people. This amendment is to come into effect upon the dissolution of the Parliament in existence at the commencement of The Act. Sections 5 and 9 of The Act effected this amendment. 20 Fourth: The Act amends Article 61(2) of the Constitution by substituting clause 2 with a new provision to the effect that the Electoral Commission shall hold presidential, general parliamentary and local government council elections within the first thirty days of the last one hundred and twenty two days before the expiration of 25 the term of the President, Parliament or Local Government Council, as the case may be. The previous Clause 2 provided that the Electoral Commission was to hold respective elections within the first thirty days of the last ninety days before the expiration of the term of the President. Clause 3 of Article 61 requiring the Electoral 6 | P a g e 5 Commission to hold presidential, general parliamentary and local government council elections on the same day was amended by the Act by deleting presidential elections from being held on the same day as the general Parliamentary and local government elections. The amendments are as per Section 1 of the Act. 10 Fifth: Article 104 (2) (3) and (6) was amended by Section 4 of the Act to the effect that a petition challenging the presidential election is to be lodged in the Supreme Court registry within fifteen days, after the declaration of the election results, instead of the hitherto ten days, and the Supreme Court shall inquire and determine the 15 petition expeditiously and shall declare its findings and reasons not later than forty five days from the date the petition is filed. Where the election is annulled, then a fresh election has to be held within sixty days from the date of the annulment. Each of the petitioners in the consolidated petitions contends that 20 The Act effecting the above amendments was enacted in violation of the Constitution both as to the content of its provisions and also as to the process through which the same was enacted. The respondent maintained that there is nothing unconstitutional about The Act, whether as to its contents or the process through 25 which it was enacted by Parliament. The following issues arose from the pleadings of the petitions and the responses to them by the respondent. The Issues: 7 | P a g e 5 1. Whether Sections 2 and 8 of the Act extending or enlarging of the term or life of Parliament from five to seven years is inconsistent with and/or in contravention of Articles 1, 8A, 61(2)(3), 77(3)(4), 79(1), 96, 105(1), 260(1), 233(b) and 289 of the Constitution. 10 2. And if so, whether applying the said Act retroactively is inconsistent with and/or in contravention of Articles 1, 8A, 77(3)(4), 79(1), 96 and 233(2)(b) of the Constitution. 3. Whether Sections 6 and 10 of the Act extending the current life of local government councils from five to seven years is 15 inconsistent with and/or in contravention of Articles 1,2, 8A, 176(3), 181(4) and 259(2) (a) of the Constitution. 4. If so, whether applying it retroactively is inconsistent with and/or in contravention of Articles 1,2, 8A, 176(3), 181(4) and 259(2)(a) of the Constitution. 20 5. Whether the alleged violence/scuffle inside and outside Parliament during the enactment of the Act was inconsistent and in contravention of Articles 1,2,3(2) and 8A of the Constitution. 6. Whether the entire process of conceptualizing, consulting, 25 debating and enacting the Act was inconsistent with and/or in contravention of the Articles of the Constitution as hereunder: (a) Whether the introduction of the private member’s Bill that led to the Act was inconsistent with and/or in 30 contravention of Article 93 of the Constitution. 8 | P a g e 5 (b) Whether the passing of Sections 2,5,6,8 and 10 of the Act was inconsistent with and/or in contravention of Article 93 of the Constitution. (c) Whether the actions of Uganda Peoples Defence Forces and Uganda Police in entering Parliament, allegedly 10 assaulting Members of Parliament in the Parliamentary Chambers, arresting and allegedly detaining the said members, is inconsistent with and/or in contravention of Articles 24, 97, 208(2) and 211(3) of the Constitution. (d) Whether the consultations carried out were marred with 15 restrictions and violence which was inconsistent with and/or in contravention of Articles 29(1)(a)(d)(e) and 29(2)(a) of the Constitution. (e) Whether the alleged failure to consult on Sections 2,5,6,8 and 10 is inconsistent with and/or in contravention of 20 Articles 1 and 8A of the Constitution. (f) Whether the alleged failure to conduct a referendum before assenting to the Bill containing Section 2,5,6,8 and 10 of the Act was inconsistent with and in contravention of Articles 1,91(1), 259(2), 260 and 263(2) 25 (b) of the Constitution.