Automated Summary
Key Facts
This case involves Constitutional Petition No. 27 of 2021 filed by six human rights activists including Prof. Dr. G. W. Kanyeihamba challenging perceived threats to the right to bail in Uganda. The petitioners alleged that statements and actions by the Attorney General and President Yoweri Museveni threatened constitutional bail provisions under Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 20, 21, 23 and 44 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court dismissed the petition as misconceived and improperly before the Court, finding no cause of action existed because the challenged reforms had not been enacted into law and newspaper reports constituted inadmissible hearsay evidence. The petition against the President was dismissed due to constitutional immunity under Article 98(4), while the petition against the Attorney General and National Resistance Movement was dismissed as no cause of action existed under Article 137(3)(a) and (b).
Issues
- Whether the Constitutional Petition is properly before the Constitutional Court under Article 137 of the Constitution. The court examined whether the petition discloses a valid cause of action, noting that Article 137(3)(a) requires a challenge to an Act of Parliament or law, not mere proposals or statements of opinion. The petition was found to challenge only statements and proposed reforms that had not been enacted, rendering it premature and speculative.
- Whether the Second Respondent (President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni) and Third Respondent (National Resistance Movement) are proper parties to the petition. The court determined that the Second Respondent has constitutional immunity under Article 98(4) from court proceedings. Against the Third Respondent, there was no cause of action as the petition relied on hearsay evidence from media reports rather than admissible proof.
- Whether the Petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought, including an order prohibiting actions threatening the right to bail, compensation, exemplary damages, and costs. The court held that redress for threatened fundamental rights under Article 50(1) falls outside the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction and should be sought in another competent court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Holdings
The Constitutional Court of Uganda dismissed Constitutional Petition No. 27 of 2021 with no order as to costs. The Court held that the petition was misconceived and improperly before this Court because the Petitioners failed to establish a cause of action under Article 137(3) of the Constitution. The Court found that the challenged statements and proposed reforms had not been passed into law, rendering the petition premature and speculative. The Court clarified that redress for threatened rights must be sought under Article 50(1) in another competent court rather than through the Constitutional Court.
Remedies
The court declined to grant any of the reliefs sought by the Petitioners. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. The court held that redress for threatened constitutional rights should be sought under Article 50(1) in another competent court, not through the Constitutional Court under Article 137.
Legal Principles
- The court emphasized the principle of avoiding undue obstruction of State affairs by overzealous litigants, noting that mere proposals for legal reforms do not give rise to a cause of action before the Constitutional Court. The court must guard against premature adjudications and entanglement in abstract or speculative disputes between potential petitioners.
- The court held that newspaper reports constitute inadmissible hearsay evidence under the Evidence Act of Uganda, citing Attorney General v Major General David Tinyefuza where it was established that copies of newspaper reports are hearsay statements and cannot be used as proof of matters in contention in a constitutional petition.
- The court found that Article 98(4) of the Constitution grants immunity to the President from court proceedings. The Second Respondent's designation as President of Uganda, even in their dual role as Chairperson of the NRM, provided constitutional immunity that forestalled any court proceedings against them.
- The court applied the doctrine of stare decisis, holding that the court is bound by its previous decisions unless exceptional circumstances exist. Additionally, the court determined that Article 137(3)(a) applies only to Acts of Parliament or laws already enacted, not to mere draft proposals for legal reform, and that redress for threatened rights should be sought under Article 50(1) rather than Article 137.
Precedent Name
- Attorney General v Major General David Tinyefuza
- Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council & Another
- Attorney General v. Uganda Law Society
- Hon. Miria Matembe & 2 Others v The Attorney General
Cited Statute
- Evidence Act of Uganda
- Constitution of Uganda
- Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules, SI No. 91 of 2005
- Civil Procedure Rules
- Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, 2019
Judge Name
Justice of the Constitutional Court
Passage Text
- 43. In the same case, clarifying the circumstances under which redress may be sought under either Article 50(1) or 137(4) of the Constitution, it was held (per Mulenga, JSC): Such application for redress can be made to the Constitutional Court, only in the context of a petition under Article 137 brought principally for the interpretation of the Constitution. It is the provisions in clauses (3) and (4) of Article 137 that empower the Constitutional Court, when adjudicating on a petition for interpretation of the Constitution, to grant redress where appropriate. Clause (3) provides, in effect, that when a person petitions for a declaration on interpretation of the Constitution, he may also petition for redress where appropriate. .... It follows that a person who seeks to enforce a right or freedom guaranteed under the Constitution, by claiming redress for its infringement, but whose claim does not call for an interpretation of the Constitution, has to apply to any other Court. (my emphasis)
- 38. In this case, all that is furnished in the Petition are copies of newspaper references to a Cabinet Meeting on the subject of bail. The Petition does not present any formal reform proposals, simply alluding to a memorandum of proposed amendments to Article 23(6) of the Constitution and section 25 of the Police Act that was allegedly authored by the Hon. Attorney General, without availing it to the Court. Even if the memorandum had been availed, the decision in Hon. Miria Matembe & 2 Others v The Attorney General (supra) is quite categorical on futuristic, speculative allegations not giving rise to a cause of action before this Court. It was held: It is clear to us that in the first limb of Article 137(3)(a), the Constitution provides for the challenging by any person who satisfies the relevant parts of the rest of Article 137, the constitutionality of an Act of Parliament and not a mere draft proposal for an Act of Parliament. If the framers of the Constitution intended that the constitutionality of a bill for an Act of Parliament can be challenged, they would have clearly stated so. .... This Court must be on its guard to avoid premature adjudications and entanglement in abstract or speculative disputes between potential petitioners. In gauging the fitness of any issue before it for judicial adjudication, this Court should not get involved in uncertain or contingent future events which may or may never occur at all. (my emphasis)
- 45. In the result, I am satisfied that this Petition is misconceived and improperly before this Court. I would resolve Issues 1 and 2 in the affirmative.