The Judiciary publicist, Elias Kisawuzi read the ruling, made by five judges led by the Deputy Chief Justice, Mpagi Bahigeine.

According to the ruling the petitioners had failed to adduce satisfactory evidence that the money was expended without approval.

The judges said they acted on credible evidence adduced before them and did not indulge in speculation or attractive reasoning.

The petitioners who include Hon. Beatrice Anywar, Action Aid Uganda, Forum for Women in Democracy Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment (ACODE), and Centre for Public Interest Law had sought declarations that the 20 million payments to each MP was unconstitutional, unlawful and had applied for orders that the 6.2 billion shillings be refunded by the recipients.

The petitioners contend that the money was a bribe by government to MPs to compel them to pass the abrupt supplementary budget during the campaign period.

The petitioners were represented by their lawyer Francis Gimara who later told journalists that they will have to first study and understand the judgment in detail before taking the next move.

Ultimate Media

The post Constitutional Court saves MPs over 20 million first appeared on Uganda Multimedia News & Information.

This meeting came after the petitioner led by Mustafa Ssemugenyi , Patrick Kinyera  and Aruu member of parliament Samuel odonga otto dragging  18 independent mps who attended the NRM  retreat to the constitutional  court   for  participating in the NRM retreat in Kyankwanzi that was held between 16th to 23rd October 2011, and NRM caucus meeting at state house Entebbe on October 24th.

The case opened up by Aruu county Member of parliament Odongo Otto and group is seeking the speaker of parliament Rebecca Kadaga to expel them from parliament for defecting to NRM party yet they came to parliament as independent mps.

Their closed meeting was chaired by their chairperson who is also the Member of Parliament for kibanda county Sam Otada at parliament.

Otada however, blamed the independent members of parliament for attending the NRM party retreat without consulting him and the speaker of parliament.

These mps in their in door meeting agreed to hire  lawyers to defend them against this case on ground that by  attending a function where they were  invited does not tantamount to crossing to another party.

Meanwhile some NRM Mps who include  the member of Parliament for Buyaga county Barnabas Tinkasimire supports the group which sued the independent mps.

Independent Mawokota south county Member of Parliament Kiyingi Bbosa who is one of the MPS who attended the retreat said that they attended the retreat on invitation without any invitation to cross as alleged.

The constitutional court on February 1, 2010 ordered over 70 members of parliament in the 8^th parliament to vacate their seats for shifting their political allegiance without vacating their seats.

By Isaac Senabulya

The post Independent MPs meet over move to suspend them from parliament first appeared on Uganda Multimedia News & Information.

Kwoyelo alias Latoni was in July charged in the Gulu Based International Crimes Division with several counts of murder, kidnap, destruction of property and aggravated robbery among others.

Thomas Kwoyelo in court

He moved to court to challenge the constitutionality of his trial yet he had applied for amnesty in 2010.

Five Justices of the Constitutional court today passed their verdict saying Kwoyelo made out a case showing that the Amnesty Commission and the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) have not accorded him equal treatment under the Amnesty Act. The five include Amos Twinomujuni, Constance Byamugisha, Augustine Nshimye, Remmy Kasule and Stella Arach-Amoko.

They agreed with Kwoyelo that that DPP’s act of prosecuting him when others who applied for amnesty were forgiven is inconsistent with Article 21 (1) (2) of the Constitution which provides for equal treatment of all Ugandans before the law and therefore null and void.

The five justices noted that the Amnesty Act has been in existence sine 2000 and about 24 000 people have been granted amnesty including 29 people in 2011. They said Kwoyelo applied for amnesty in 2010 observing that the DPP did not give any objection and reasonable explanation why he did not sanction Kwoyelo’s application.

“The applicant acquired a legal right to be granted amnesty or pardon under the Amnesty Act like everyone else who renounces rebellion,” the judges ruled. They said it was too late for DPP to claim his constitutional independence using the applicant. They observed that the Amnesty Act was not enacted to whittle down the prosecutorial powers of DPP or interfere with his independence as the State claimed in their submission. The DPP’s powers in their view were not infringed upon by the application for amnesty.

The five justices ordered that the file be forwarded back to the lower court with direction that it must cease the trial of the applicant (Kwoyelo) forthwith.

Moments after court, a jubilant Kwoyelo was seen hugging his lawyers for the job well done. He was represented by Caleb Alaka and Francis Onyango.

Kwoleyo however has to remain in the custody of prisons official until his case comes up for termination in Gulu.

The post Uganda Constitutional Court stops trial of form LRA rebel Thoma Kwoleyo first appeared on Uganda Multimedia News & Information.

The Supreme Court will on Friday hear two petitions challenging the dismissal of 70 Member of Parliament from parliament in a case filed against William Okecho and the government.

Chief Justice, Benjamin Odoki

The Supreme Court pane of five Judges led by Chief Justice Benjamin Odoki will handle the petition one filled by the Attorney General seeking a stay of execution to allow the members of parliament remain in the house on the grounds that the previous court ruling nullifying their nomination was invalid.

The second petition to be hard was filed by Budama west Member of Parliament William Okecho who also claims the constitution court ruling does not hold merit.

The Constitutional Court earlier this month ruled that MPs who changed their political affiliation on which they are compeiting for MP in February 2011 elections did so illegally and lost their seats in the current Parliament, and their nominations for current elections are null and void.

Here is the full constitutional court ruling

Ultimate Media

The post Supreme Court decides the fate of 70 Uganda MPs affected by the Constitutional Court ruling first appeared on Uganda Multimedia News & Information.

The Electoral Commission had summoned Lukwago for an explanation tomorrow after Geoffrey Serwadda asked EC to disqualify Lukwago for having been involved in a criminal case with the court martial in 2005.

MP Elias Lukwago

The directive issued by court judge Alice Mpagi Bahigeine today stops EC from hearing from Lukwago until the Constitutional Court listens to Lukwago’s defense.

After the petition from Serwadda to the EC, Lukwago appealed to the Constitutional Court asking it to declare the Court Martial an incompetent court. In 2005 the Court Martial charged Lukwago for contempt of court and it fined him 1,000 shillings.

Judge Bahegeine says they will first listen to Lukwago’s appeal before they allow EC to disqualify him.

Lukwago who is the current Kampala Central MP and a critic of the Museveni government says that the EC is used by the ruling government (NRM) to eliminate him from the mayoral race, which he claims he will surely win.

He says that last month they summoned him over the academic papers and this time it is the Court Martial case.

Ultimate Media

The post Court puts an injunction on EC about Lukwago’s case first appeared on Uganda Multimedia News & Information.

Here is the full judgment by the Constitutional Court

Constitution Petition NO. 38 of 2010

George Owor (Petitioner) vs
1.The Attorney General
2. Hon. William Okecho (Respondents)

INTRODUCTION:

The petitioner filed a petition in which he made the following averments:

1)  That your petitioner is a male adult Ugandan of sound mind and an ardent believer in the Rule of Law and Constitutionalism.

2)     That your petitioner is interested in and/or aggrieved by the following matters being inconsistent with the Constitution whereby your petitioner is aggrieved:

The act of 2nd respondent contesting in the National Resistance Movement Party Primary Elections when he returned the National Resistance Movement Membership Card in 2006, stood as an Independent and was elected Member of Parliament of West Budama North Constituency as an independent candidate is inconsistent with and/or in contravention of articles 1(1)(2)(4), 2(1)(2), 3(1)(2), 4(a)(b), 20(1)(2), 21(1), 43 (1) (2)(c), 45, 72(4)(5), 83(i)(g)(h), (3) and 81(4) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995.

b. The act of the 2nd respondent continuing to sit in Parliament as an Independent member of Parliament having joined the National Resistance Movement, a Political Party and contested in the said National Resistance Movement Party elections on 30-8-2010 is inconsistent with and/or in contravention of articles 1(1)(2)(4), 2(1)(2), 3(1)(2), 4(a)(b), 83(i)(g)(h), (3) and 81(4) of the constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995.”

The petitioner prayed for the following declarations and orders:

A declaration that the act of the 2nd respondent standing in the National Resistance Movement Party Primary Elections when he returned the National Resistance Movement Membership Card in 2006, stood as an independent and was elected member of Parliament of West Budama North Constituency as an Independent candidate is inconsistent with and/or in contravention of articles 1(1)(2)(4), 2(1)(2), 3(1)(2), 20(1)(2), 21(1), 43(1)(2)(c), 45, 72(4)(5), 83(i)(g)(h), (3) and 81(4) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995.

A declaration that the act of the 2nd respondent standing in the National Resistance Movement Party Primary Elections while having joined the National Resistance Movement, a political party and contested in the said National Resistance Movement Party Elections on 30-8-2010 is inconsistent with and/or in contravention of articles 1(1)(2)(4), 2(1)(2), 3(1)(2), 20(1)(2), 21(1), 43(1)(2)(c), 45, 72(4)(5), 83(i)(g)(h), (3) and 81(4) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995.

A declaration that the 2nd respondent ceased being a member of Parliament and or vacated his seat in Parliament upon joining the National Resistance Movement Party in or around August 2010.

A declaration that the 2nd respondent unconstitutionally continues to draw emoluments, salaries, privileges and/or allowances since his vacation of Parliament and he should refund to the consolidated fund all such public funds.

A declaration that the 2nd respondent’s candidature in the National Resistance Movement Party Primaries was unconstitutional ab initio for contravening article 83 (h).

A declaration that the 2nd respondent is not qualified to stand as candidate be it as an Independent candidate or on a political party ticket. An injunction restraining the respondent’s unconstitutional actions.

An injunction restraining the 2nd respondent from continuing to contravene the Constitution by purporting to stand in any election as Member of Parliament on dual identities.
Costs of this petition.”

The petition is accompanied by an affidavit ‘sworn by the petitioner and filed in this Court on 14th September 2010 in which he narrates the background to the petition and the reasons that led him to file the petition.

The respondents filed answers to the petition which are also accompanied by affidavits in which they deny liability and pray that the petition be dismissed due to the fact that it does not raise any issues for constitutional interpretation.

THE ISSUES:

The parties held a Scheduling Conference before His worship, Asaph Ruhinda Ntengye, the Registrar of this Court on 3rd November 2010 and framed the following issues for determination by this court.

1. Whether the petition raises issues for constitutional interpretation.
2. Whether the act of the 2nd respondent contesting NRM Party Primary Elections having been elected as an Independent member of Parliament for West Budama North is inconsistent with and/or is in contravention of . Articles 83(1)(h)&(g), 1(1)(2)(4), 2(1)(2), 3(1)(2), 4(a)(b), 20(1)(2), 21(1), 43(1)(2)(c), 45, 72(4)(5) and 81(4) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995.

3. Whether act of the 2nd respondent continuing to sit in Parliament as an Independent member of Parliament having joined the NRM political party is inconsistent with and/or is in contravention of articles 83(1 ) (h) &(g), 1(1)(2)(4),2(1)(2),3(1)(2), 4(a)(b), 20(1)(2), 21(1), 43(1)(2)(c), 45, 72(4)(5), 83(i)(g)(h), (3) and 81(4) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995.
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the remedies prayed for.

REPRESENTATION

At the trial of this petition, Dr. James Akampumuza represented the petitioner and Mr. Richard Adrole, a State Attorney and Ms Eva Kabanda, also a State Attorney, jointly represented the first respondent. Mr. Alfred Okello Oryem represented the second respondent.

THE CASE FOR THE PETITIONER

Dr. Akampumuza contended that the petition discloses issues for constitutional interpretation which were agreed upon during the scheduling conference and which are now before the Court upon which constitutional interpretation is being sought.

He cited the Supreme Court decision in Baku Raphael Abudra and Obiga Kania vs The Attorney General Constitutional Petition No.1 of 2003 in which the Court per Kanyeihamba JSC (as he then was) stated:

In a number of cases Attorney General v Major General Tinyefuza, Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997 (S.C) and Serugo v Kampala City Council, Constitutional Appeal No.2 of 1998 (S.C.) this court has expressed the view that in constitutional petitions brought under Article 137(3) of the constitution, a cause of action is disclosed if the petitioner alleges the act or omission complained of and cites the provision of the 20 Constitution which has-been contravened and prays for a declaration.”

He submitted that in this petition, the decision of the Supreme Court (Supra) and Article 137 of the 25 Constitution are complied with as the petition alleges and specifies the acts of the respondents which have contravened specified articles of the Constitution and prays for declarations and remedies. Counsel also cited other authorities to the same effect and called upon us to proceed and determine the petition as it was properly before us.

The gist of this issue is whether the 2nd respondent who is currently a member Parliament for North Budama Constituency where he was elected as an Independent can at the same time be nominated as a flag bearer of NRM Party when he has not resigned from Parliament as required by article 83 and other provisions of the Constitution.

Dr. Akampumuza submitted that there is no dispute that in 2006, the second respondent resigned his party membership from NRM in order to stand as an Independent. He was elected as an Independent and he has not yet resigned that position.

Yet, he has just been nominated as a flag bearer of NRM in the same constituency which is prohibited by the Constitution. He called upon us to decide this in the affirmative that the act of being nominated contravened the article specified in the issue.

The gist of this issue is whether the second respondent can continue to sit Parliament as an Independent representative of the people of North Budama Constituency while he is the nominated flag hearer of NRM Party.

In Dr. Akampumuza’s view, the conduct of the 2nd respondent contravenes the Constitution and he should be disqualified from sitting in Parliament as an Independent. Dr. Akampumuza submitted that because of the reasons he advanced in issues No.2 and 3 above, his client is entitled to all the remedies prayed for.

THE CASE FOR THE RESPONDENTS

Mr. Adrole, the learned State Attorney who represented the 1st respondent did not seek to contest the petition except on only the 1st and 4th issues of this petition.

On the 1st issue as to whether the petition raised issues for constitutional interpretation, he advanced a simple answer, to wit, that under article 86 of the Constitution, the 2nd respondent is still an Independent Member of Parliament since his seat has not yet been declared vacant by the Hon. Speaker of Parliament in accordance with that article.

Mr. Adrole argued that the petitioner did not use the remedies available under that article and therefore this petition is wrongly before this court and should be dismissed. He cited the case of Hon. Isha Otto

Awizi vs Hon. Betty Amongi and 26 others H.C Misc. Apl. No. 134 of 2010 in support of his arguments.

THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Mr. Okello Oryem argued issue No.2 and No.3
20 together. Though he appeared to concede that the conduct of the 2nd respondent contravened a set of articles of the Constitution as averred by the petitioner, yet in his view, it was consistent with another set of articles in the same Constitution, to wit, the National Objectives and Directions Principles of State Policy and Articles 1, 2, 20, 21, 29, 38, 40, 44, 45, 50, 61, 67, 69 and 83 of the Constitution. Next Page 2

The post Detailed Uganda Constitutional Court Ruling on Members of Parliament who changed political party first appeared on Uganda Multimedia News & Information.

female genital mutilation (photo-robert skinner)

In a ruling that would have been declared as landmark one had the parliament of Uganda not passed a law banning FGM recently, the five justices of the Constitutional court agreed with the petitioners that the practice of FGM abuses fundamental rights of women and is against the laws of Uganda and several instruments on women’s rights that Uganda is signatory to.

The Constitutional Court justices led by the deputy Chief Justice Leticia Kikonyogo agreed with the petitioners that the practice is not in accordance with Uganda’s laws and the international treaties.

The Human Rights Advocacy for Women in Uganda, a local NGO petitioned the Constitutional Court in April 2007 seeking nullification orders against FGM which is a culture practice among the Sabiny of eastern Uganda and a few Karimojong. FGM is practiced as an initiation rite of girls into adulthood, but it has resulted in many pains and diseases for women who undergo the practice. In some countries like Mali and Tanzania, girls are circumcised as young as two years.

The petitioners actually argued that the practice has no medical benefits and only results in medical complications for women and girls who undergo the painful practice.

The Human Rights Advocacy for Women in Uganda also argued that FGM is done by unprofessional surgeons without anaesthesia which cases a lot of pain and increases the risk of HIV transmission due to use of unsterilized instruments and untrained personnel.

The Member of Parliament for Kinkizi West, Dr. Chris Baryomunsi earlier this year succeeded in convincing the Parliament of Uganda to pass his anti FGM legislation which President Yoweri Museveni assented to and is already a law.

By Ultimate Media

The post Uganda Constitutional Court Declares Female Circumcision unconstitutional first appeared on Uganda Multimedia News & Information.