Attorney General v Paul K. Ssemogerere and Anor [2004] UGSC 35 (2 September 2004)

# Attorney General v Paul K. Ssemogerere and Anor [2004] UGSC 35 (2 September 2004) [ Share this document on WhatsApp opens in new tab __](https://api.whatsapp.com/send?text=Attorney+General+v+Paul+K.+Ssemogerere+and+Anor+%5B2004%5D+UGSC+35+%282+September+2004%29+-+https%3A%2F%2Fulii.org%2Fen%2Fakn%2Fug%2Fjudgment%2Fugsc%2F2004%2F35%2Feng%402004-09-02) [ Share this document on X opens in new tab __](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Attorney+General+v+Paul+K.+Ssemogerere+and+Anor+%5B2004%5D+UGSC+35+%282+September+2004%29+-+https%3A%2F%2Fulii.org%2Fen%2Fakn%2Fug%2Fjudgment%2Fugsc%2F2004%2F35%2Feng%402004-09-02) [ Share this document on Facebook opens in new tab __](https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://ulii.org/en/akn/ug/judgment/ugsc/2004/35/eng@2004-09-02) [ Share this document on LinkedIn opens in new tab __](https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=https://ulii.org/en/akn/ug/judgment/ugsc/2004/35/eng@2004-09-02) [ Share this document by email __](mailto:?subject=Take%20a%20look%20at%20this%20document%20from%20ULII:%20Attorney%20General%20v%20Paul%20K.%20Ssemogerere%20and%20%E2%80%A6&body=https://ulii.org/en/akn/ug/judgment/ugsc/2004/35/eng@2004-09-02) [ Download RTF (144.5 KB) ](/en/akn/ug/judgment/ugsc/2004/35/eng@2004-09-02/source) Toggle dropdown * [Download PDF](/en/akn/ug/judgment/ugsc/2004/35/eng@2004-09-02/source.pdf) Report a problem ##### Is there something wrong with this document? Problem category *Incorrect informationMissing informationNo PDF downloadDocument is emptyDocument is not accessible on my deviceOther What's the problem? * Your email address * CancelReport problem __ * Share * [ Download RTF (144.5 KB) ](/en/akn/ug/judgment/ugsc/2004/35/eng@2004-09-02/source) * [Download PDF](/en/akn/ug/judgment/ugsc/2004/35/eng@2004-09-02/source.pdf) * * * * * Report a problem __ ##### Attorney General v Paul K. Ssemogerere and Anor [2004] UGSC 35 (2 September 2004) Copy citation * __Document detail * __Related documents * __Citations 3 / - Citation Attorney General v Paul K. Ssemogerere and Anor [2004] UGSC 35 (2 September 2004) Copy Media Neutral Citation [2004] UGSC 35 Copy Court [Supreme Court of Uganda](/en/judgments/UGSC/) Judgment date 2 September 2004 Language English Summary Whether the referendum Act was enacted outside the constitutional timeframe and if the referendum itself could be declared void. ###### Flynote * Constitutional Law * — Transitional Provisions — Timing of referendum legislation under Article 271(2) * — Parliamentary Procedure — Requirement to refer Bills to Standing Committees under Article 90 * — Referendum Validity — Effect of absence of political organisations law on free and fair referendum under Article 69 Read full summary __ ##### Ask AI Ask questions and understand this document faster using AI. __Ask AI * * * Skip to document content **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA** **IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA** **AT MENGO** **(CORAM: ODOKI CJ, ODER, TSEKOOKO, KAROKORA, MULENGA, KANYEIHAMBA, J.J. S.C, AND OGOOLA, AG. JSC)** **CONSTITUTIONAL APPEAL NO.3 OF 2004** **BETWEEN** **THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPELLANT** **AND** 1. **PAUL K. SSEMOGERERE}** 2. **HON ZACHARY OLUM }::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENTS** _**(An appeal from the decision of the Constitutional Court of Uganda at Kampala (Okello, Mpagi-Bahigeine, Engwau, Twinomujuni and Kitumba JJA,) dated 25th June 2004, in Constitutional Petition No. 3 of 2000)**_ **JUDGMENT OF THE COURT** This is an appeal against the decision of the Constitutional Court of Uganda dated 25th June 2004, whereby the petition filed by the respondents challenging the validity of the Referendum (Political Systems) Act 2000, was granted, and the Act was declared void. The respondents alleged in the petition that they were affected and aggrieved by the following matters being inconsistent with [the Constitution](/akn/ug/act/statute/1995/constitution): _"(a) That the Referendum (Political Systems) Act 2000 (the Act) declared passed by the Parliament of Uganda on 7th June, 2000, was passed in contravention of Article 90 (1) and (3) (a) and (e) of[the Constitution](/akn/ug/act/statute/1995/constitution) of Uganda and Rules 99 and 100 of the Rules Procedure of the Parliament of Uganda in that the Bill was neither discussed by the relevant Committee of Parliament or were recommendations thereon duly made._ 2. _That Section 2 of the Act is calculated to confer power upon Parliament to make the Political Systems Referendum law outside the time prescribed under Article 271 (2) of[the Constitution](/akn/ug/act/statute/1995/constitution) thus effecting an amendment of Article 271 (2) without following the Constitutional Procedures laid down in Articles 259, 260 and 261 and as such the provisions of Section 2 are in contravention of those Articles of [the Constitution](/akn/ug/act/statute/1995/constitution)._ 3. _That the passing of the Act on 7th June, 2000 being just about one year before the expiry of the term of the first Parliament elected under the 1995 Constitution, was in contravention of Article 271 (2) of[the Constitution](/akn/ug/act/statute/1995/constitution), and deprives the voters including the petitioners of their right thereunder._ 4. _That in contravention of Article 75 of[the Constitution](/akn/ug/act/statute/1995/constitution), the Act promotes and establishes one political party, the Movement, to the extent that the Act failed to comply with Articles 73 of [the Constitution](/akn/ug/act/statute/1995/constitution) but instead incorporated the Electoral Commission [Act, No. 3 of 1997](/akn/ug/act/1997/3) and the Parliamentary Election (Interim Provisions) [Statute No. 4 of 1996](/akn/ug/act/statute/1996/4) which deny political parties recognised under Article 269 in the referendum prescribed under Article 271 of [the Constitution](/akn/ug/act/statute/1995/constitution) and in consequence the Act is inconsistent with, and is in contravention of, Articles 20, 21, 29 (1) (a), (b), (d) and (e), 43 (2) (a), and (c), 73 and 269, of [the Constitution](/akn/ug/act/statute/1995/constitution) and clauses (iv), (v) and (vi) of the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy._ 5. _That the omission by Parliament to enact the Political Organisations Bill under Article 269 allowing political party activities has so thoroughly corrupted the democratic process that the fundamental right to free and fair elections cannot be provided in the Referendum in contravention of Article 69 of[the Constitution](/akn/ug/act/statute/1995/constitution)._ 6. _That Section 27 and the whole Act is inconsistent with Article 271 of[the Constitution](/akn/ug/act/statute/1995/constitution) in that contrary to the Provisions of Article 271 the Act is parallel to the Referendum and Other Provisions Act, 1999 which by the 7th June, 2000 was still on the Statute books of Uganda unrepealed by Parliament_ 7. _That to the extent that the Act has the intendment to nullify the decisions of the Supreme Court of Uganda in Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2000 between the Petitioners and the Attorney General and to interfere with the trial of Constitutional Petition No. 3 of 1999 between the same parties, the Act was passed in contravention of Articles 28, 92 and 128 (2) of[the Constitution](/akn/ug/act/statute/1995/constitution)._ 8. _That the Act is further unconstitutional in that it violates the obligations of Uganda to respect the Fundamental Rights to free speech, free and fair elections, freedom of association and freedom of assembly embodied in various International Human Rights Convention to which Uganda is a party or with which Uganda is otherwise obligated to comply and in the premises the Act is in contravention of Articles 20, 52 (h) and 286 of[the Constitution](/akn/ug/act/statute/1995/constitution) and Clause XXVIII of the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy of [the Constitution](/akn/ug/act/statute/1995/constitution)."_ The respondents stated further that by reason of the matters stated in paragraph 1 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) above, the Referendum (Political Systems) Act 2000 is unconstitutional and must be struck down as null and void. The respondents prayed for the following declarations: _"(i)____That_ ___the_ ___passing_ ___of_ ___the_ ___Referendum_ ___(Political Systems)____Act_ ___2000_ ___by_ ___Parliament_ ___in_ ___one_ ___day,____7_ _th_ ___June, 2000,____without_ ___first_ ___referring_ ___it_ ___to_ ___the_ ___relevant_ ___Standing Committee_ ___of_ ___Parliament_ ___was_ ___inconsistent_ ___with Article_ ___90_ ___(1)____and_ ___(3)____of_ ___the_ ___Constitution._ _(ii) That the enactment of a Political Systems Referendum law which denies political parties of the Constitutional right to participate in the referendum to choose a political system under Article 271 but instead institutes the 'Movement' as the only recognised political system before the Referendum is held and in contravention of Articles 20, 21, 29, 73, 75 and 269 of[the Constitution](/akn/ug/act/statute/1995/constitution) is null and void and ineffectual._ _(iii) That Parliament was incompetent to enact the Referendum (Political Systems) Act 2000 upon expiry of the time prescribed by[the Constitution](/akn/ug/act/statute/1995/constitution) and thereby reduce the time allowed for canvassing, the law so enacted is null and void._ _(iv) That the passing of the Referendum (Political Systems) Act 2000 was outside the competence of Parliament to the extent it was calculated to alter the judgment or decisions of the Courts between the petitioners and the Government._ _(v) That the Referendum (Political Systems) Act 2000 is a colourable legislation whose objectives and effect is to outlaw Political_ _Organisations_ ___permanently_ ___except the_ ___Movement_ ___political_ ___organisation_ ___and_ ___institute_ ___a one_ ___party_ ___State_ ___and_ ___consequently_ ___the_ ___Act_ ___is_ ___in contravention_ ___of_ ___the_ ___Constitution."_ The __ petition was accompanied by affidavits sworn by each of the respondents and one other affidavit sworn by Hon. Daniel Omara Atubo, in support of the petition. The appellant filed an answer to the petition in which he stated that both the Referendum (Political Systems) Act 2000 and the referendum which was held pursuant to the Act were enacted and organised in accordance with [the Constitution](/akn/ug/act/statute/1995/constitution). The answer to the petition was supported by the affidavits sworn by Mr. Joseph Matsiko, Senior State Attorney and the Rt. Hon. Edward K. Ssekandi, Speaker of Parliament. The petition, which was filed on 22nd June 2000, was not heard until 28th April 2004, over three years after the referendum on political systems had been held on 29th June 2000. At the hearing of the petition, the following issues were framed for determination: _**"1.**__****__**Whether**_ _****__**or**_ _****__**not**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**Referendum**_ _****__**(Political**_ _****__**Systems) Act,**__****__**2000**_ _****__**is**_ _****__**law**_ _****__**and**_ _****__**can**_ _****__**be**_ _****__**challenged.**_ 2. _**Whether**_ _****__**or**_ _****__**not**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**procedures**_ _****__**applied**_ _****__**in**_ _****__**enacting the**_ _****__**Referendum**_ _****__**(Political**_ _****__**Systems)**__****__**Act**_ _****__**2000**_ _****__**were consistent**_ _****__**with**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**procedures**_ _****__**prescribed**_ _****__**under**_ _****__**[the Constitution](/akn/ug/act/statute/1995/constitution)**_ _****__**of**_ _****__**Uganda.**_ 3. _**Whether**_ _****__**or**_ _****__**not**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**Act**_ _****__**was**_ _****__**made**_ _****__**in**_ _****__**contravention**_ _****__**of**_ _**Article**_ _****__**271**_ _****__**of**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**Constitution**_ _****__**of**_ _****__**Uganda.**_ 4. _**Whether**_ _****__**or**_ _****__**not**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**absence**_ _****__**of**_ _****__**a**_ _****__**law**_ _****__**regulating**_ _****__**the activities**_ _****__**of**_ _****__**political**_ _****__**organisations**_ _****__**as**_ _****__**provided**_ _****__**under Article**_ _****__**269**_ _****__**of**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**Constitution**_ _****__**contravened**_ _****__**Article**_ _****__**69 by**_ _****__**perpetuating**_ _****__**a**_ _****__**political**_ _****__**environment**_ _****__**under**_ _****__**which the**_ _****__**people**_ _****__**of**_ _****__**Uganda**_ _****__**could**_ _****__**not**_ _****__**make**_ _****__**a**_ _****__**free**_ _****__**and**_ _****__**fair choice**_ _****__**of**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**political**_ _****__**system**_ _****__**as**_ _****__**to**_ _****__**how**_ _****__**they**_ _****__**should be**_ _****__**governed.**_ _**5.**____**Whether**_ _****__**or**_ _****__**not**_ _****__**any**_ _****__**relief**_ _****__**should**_ _****__**be**_ _****__**granted."**_ After hearing the petition, the Constitutional Court, by a unanimous decision allowed the petition with costs to respondents and made the following declarations: _**"(a)**__****__**The**_ _****__**passing**_ _****__**of**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**Referendum**_ _****__**(Political**_ _****__**Systems) Act**_ _****__**2000**_ _****__**by**_ _****__**Parliament**_ _****__**on**_ _****__**7**_ _**th**_ _****__**June**_ _****__**2000**_ _****__**was**_ _****__**in contravention**_ _****__**of**_ _****__**Articles**_ _****__**89,**__****__**90**_ _****__**(1)**__****__**and**_ _****__**(3)**__****__**of**_ _****__**[the Constitution](/akn/ug/act/statute/1995/constitution)**_ _****__**for**_ _****__**failure**_ _****__**to**_ _****__**follow**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**voting**_ _****__**procedure set**_ _****__**out**_ _****__**in**_ _****__**Article**_ _****__**89**_ _****__**and**_ _****__**failure**_ _****__**to**_ _****__**refer**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**Bill**_ _****__**to**_ _****__**the relevant**_ _****__**Standing**_ _****__**Committee**_ _****__**of**_ _****__**Parliament**_ _****__**as prescribed**_ _****__**in**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**Constitution.**_ 2. _**Holding**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**referendum**_ _****__**under**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**Referendum (Political**_ _****__**Systems)**__****__**Act**_ _****__**2000**_ _****__**before**_ _****__**passing**_ _****__**a**_ _****__**law under**_ _****__**Article**_ _****__**269**_ _****__**to**_ _****__**set**_ _****__**free**_ _****__**Political**_ _****__**Organisations: contravened**_ _****__**Article**_ _****__**69.**_ 3. _**Parliament**_ _****__**had**_ _****__**no**_ _****__**authority**_ _****__**to**_ _****__**pass**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**Referendum (Political**_ _****__**Systems)**__****__**Act**_ _****__**2000**_ _****__**after**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**expiry**_ _****__**of**_ _****__**the period**_ _****__**stated**_ _****__**in**_ _****__**Article**_ _****__**271**_ _****__**(2),**__****__**without**_ _****__**first**_ _****__**amending that**_ _****__**provision**_ _****__**of**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**Constitution."**_ The appellant being aggrieved by the above decision has appealed to this Court on fourteen grounds of appeal. During the hearing of this appeal, the appellant was represented by Hon. Amama Mbabazi, Attorney General, assisted by Mr. Joseph Matsiko, Principal State Attorney. The respondents were represented by Mr. G.S. Lule, assisted by Mr. Joseph Balikuddembe. At the commencement of the hearing Hon. Amama Mbabazi indicated to the Court that he would abandon the first ground of appeal which complains that the learned Judges of the Constitutional Court erred in law and in fact in not writing a judgment of the court. At the conclusion of his submissions, Hon Mbabazi informed the Court that he had already covered ground 12 and he would not argue ground 13. These grounds are as follows: _**"12.**__****__**Th**_**e** _**learned**_ _****__**Judges**_ _****__**of**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**Constitutional**_ _****__**Court**_ _****__**erred in**_ _****__**law**_ _****__**and**_ _****__**in**_ _****__**fact**_ _****__**in**_ _****__**failing**_ _****__**to**_ _****__**evaluate**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**evidence on**_ _****__**record**_ _****__**and**_ _****__**thereby**_ _****__**came**_ _****__**to**_ _****__**wrong**_ _****__**conclusions, and**_ _****__**decisions;**_ _**13.**__****__**The**_ _****__**learned**_ _****__**Judges**_ _****__**of**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**Constitutional**_ _****__**Court**_ _****__**erred in**_ _****__**law**_ _****__**and**_ _****__**in**_ _****__**fact**_ _****__**being**_ _****__**biased**_ _****__**against**_ _****__**the Respondent**_ _****__**and**_ _****__**thereby**_ _****__**came**_ _****__**to**_ _****__**wrong conclusions."**_ We think that the learned Attorney General took the right course of action on these grounds. The remaining grounds were argued by Counsel for the appellant in five batches, as follows: 1. Grounds 2 and 3 together; 2. Grounds 4, 7 and 8 together; 3. Grounds 9,10 and 11 together; 4. Grounds 5 and 6 together; and (e) The rest of grounds separately. We heard this appeal from 9th to 11th August 2004 and we reserved our judgment to be given on notice. In view of the urgency and importance of the issues involved in the appeal, we have found it appropriate to announce our decision in the appeal and reserve the detailed reasons for our decision, to be given later on notice. In rendering our decision we propose to adopt the same approach with regard to the consideration of the grounds of appeal in batches as adopted by the learned Attorney General, with slight variation. We shall also alter the order of considering the batches by considering grounds 4,7 and 8, after grounds 5 and 6, and grounds 9, 10 and 11 in that order. Finally we shall deal with the relief of declaration separately. **Grounds 2 and 3:** The 2nd and 3rd grounds of appeal state as follows: **"2.**_**The**_ _****__**learned**_ _****__**Judges**_ _****__**of**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**Constitutional**_ _****__**Court**_ _****__**erred in**_ _****__**law**_ _****__**and**_ _****__**in**_ _****__**fact**_ _****__**in**_ _****__**holding**_ _****__**that**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**expired Referendum**_ _****__**(Political**_ _****__**Systems)**__****__**Act,**__****__**2000**_ _****__**can**_ _****__**be challenged**_ _****__**as**_ _****__**being**_ _****__**unconstitutional;**_ _**3.**__****__**The**_ _****__**learned**_ _****__**Judges**_ _****__**of**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**Constitutional**_ _****__**Court**_ _****__**erred in**_ _****__**law**_ _****__**and**_ _****__**in**_ _****__**fact**_ _****__**in**_ _****__**hearing**_ _****__**and**_ _****__**deciding**_ _****__**on**_ _****__**a**_ _**Petition**_ _****__**challenging**_ _****__**a**_ _****__**non-existing**_ _****__**dispute**_ _****__**on**_ _****__**the basis**_ _****__**of**_ _****__**a**_ _****__**non-existing**_ _****__**law."**_ The Referendum (Political Systems) [Act No.9 of 2000](/akn/ug/act/2000/9) was enacted as an Act of Parliament and was in force on 22nd June 2000, when the respondents filed a petition in the Constitutional Court, alleging that the Act was passed in contravention of diverse provisions of [the Constitution](/akn/ug/act/statute/1995/constitution). The subsequent expiry of the Act, after its purpose was accomplished, did not erase its effects, nor did it extinguish the cause of action to which the enactment gave rise. The Constitutional Court was seized of a live and existing dispute and did not err in holding that the Act can be challenged in Court under Article 137 of [the Constitution](/akn/ug/act/statute/1995/constitution). We find no merit in grounds 2 and 3, which must fail. **Grounds 5 and 6:** Grounds 5 and 6 are that: _**"5.**__****__**The**_ _****__**learned**_ _****__**Judges**_ _****__**of**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**Constitutional**_ _****__**Court**_ _****__**erred in**_ _****__**law**_ _****__**and**_ _****__**in**_ _****__**fact**_ _****__**in**_ _****__**holding**_ _****__**that**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**Referendum (Political**_ _****__**Systems)**__****__**Act,**__****__**2000**_ _****__**was**_ _****__**passed**_ _****__**in contravention**_ _****__**of**_ _****__**Article**_ _****__**271**_ _****__**(2)**__****__**of**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**Constitution.**_ _**6.**__****__**The**_ _****__**learned**_ _****__**Judges**_ _****__**of**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**Constitutional**_ _****__**Court**_ _****__**erred in**_ _****__**law**_ _****__**and**_ _****__**in**_ _****__**fact**_ _****__**in**_ _****__**holding**_ _****__**that**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**Referendum (Political**_ _****__**Systems)**__****__**Act,**__****__**2000**_ _****__**amended**_ _****__**Article**_ _****__**271**_ _****__**(2)**__**of**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**Constitution."**_ Under its Transitional Provisions in Chapter 19, [the Constitution](/akn/ug/act/statute/1995/constitution) commands Parliament under Article 271, to enact laws to give effect to the provisions in that Article. The laws to be enacted were to ensure _**int**_**e** _**r**_ _****__**alia**_ _****_ that - * Two years before the expiry of the term of the first Parliament elected under [the Constitution](/akn/ug/act/statute/1995/constitution) any person is free to canvass for public support for a political system of his or her choice for purposes of a referendum, as provided in clause 2 of that Article; * During the last month of the fourth year of the term of the first Parliament, a referendum is held to determine the political system the people of Uganda wish to adopt. The term of the first Parliament commenced on 2nd July 1996 and expired on 1st July 2001. The time by which every person was to be free to canvass for a political system of his or her choice, i.e. two years before expiry of that term, as provided in Article 271(2), was 2nd July 1999, and the last month of the fourth year of the said term was June 2000. According to its long title, the Referendum (Political Systems) [Act No.9 of 2000](/akn/ug/act/2000/9), was enacted **_"to make provision for the holding of the referendum required to be held under article 271"._**_****_ The passing of the Act on 7th June 2000, therefore, was in contravention of, and inconsistent with Article 271(2) because, contrary to the time prescribed in that Article, the Act was passed long after it was due, and it sought to abridge the period for canvassing for the purposes of the referendum. The provisions of the Act in section 2, to give the Act retrospective effect, and in section 29 to validate actions taken and statutory instruments made in good faith could not cure the invalidity of the Act. We therefore hold that the Constitutional Court did not err in holding that the Act was passed in contravention of Article 271(2) of [the Constitution](/akn/ug/act/statute/1995/constitution). Grounds 5 and 6 must also fail. **Grounds 9,10 and 11:** Grounds 9, 10 and 11 are framed as follows: **"9******_**Th**_**e******_**learned**_ _****__**Judges**_ _****__**of**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**Constitutional**_ _****__**Court**_ _****__**erred in**_ _****__**law**_ _****__**and**_ _****__**in**_ _****__**fact**_ _****__**in**_ _****__**holding**_ _****__**that**_ _****__**a**_ _****__**Committee**_ _****__**of**_ _****__**the whole**_ _****__**House**_ _****__**is**_ _****__**not**_ _****__**a**_ _****__**Standing**_ _****__**Committee**_ _****__**of**_ _**Parliament;**_ 10. _**The**_ _****__**learned**_ _****__**Judges**_ _****__**of**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**Constitutional**_ _****__**Court**_ _****__**erred in**_ _****__**law**_ _****__**and**_ _****__**in**_ _****__**fact**_ _****__**in**_ _****__**holding**_ _****__**that**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**passing**_ _****__**of**_ _****__**the Referendum**_ _****__**(Political**_ _****__**Systems)**__****__**Act,**__****__**2000 contravened**_ _****__**Article**_ _****__**90**_ _****__**of**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**Constitution;**_ 11. _**The**_ _****__**learned**_ _****__**Judges**_ _****__**of**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**Constitutional**_ _****__**Court**_ _****__**erred in**_ _****__**law**_ _****__**and**_ _****__**in**_ _****__**fact**_ _****__**in**_ _****__**holding**_ _****__**that**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**voting**_ _****__**method adopted**_ _****__**by**_ _****__**Parliament**_ _****__**in**_ _****__**passing**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**Referendum (Political**_ _****__**Systems)**__****__**Act,**__****__**2000**_ _****__**contravened**_ _****__**Article**_ _****_**89** _**of**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**Constitution."**_ We find no merit in ground 9. The Constitutional Court was right in holding that the Committee of the Whole House is not a Standing Committee of Parliament. Though it may be permanent, it does not possess the characteristics of a Standing Committee as specified in Article 90 (2) (a) of [the Constitution](/akn/ug/act/statute/1995/constitution). Ground 9 therefore fails. However, there is merit in grounds 10 and 11. First, it is our considered opinion that the Constitutional Court erred in holding that the passing of the Referendum (Political Systems) Act 2000 contravened Article 90 by reason of the omission to refer the Bill for that Act, for scrutiny and recommendations by any Standing Committee. Parliament has power under Article 79 (1) to make laws on any matter for the peace, order, development and good governance of Uganda. We find nothing in Article 90, which makes it mandatory for Parliament to refer a Bill to a Standing Committee before exercising that power. In our view, the provision in Article 90 (3) that makes it a function of Standing Committees to discuss and make recommendations on all Bills laid before Parliament, only empowers Standing Committee to do so in the course of assisting Parliament to discharge its functions efficiently. The provision cannot be construed as a restriction on, nor as providing a condition precedent for Parliament in the exercise of its legislative power. Secondly, with regard to the method of voting in Parliament, we find that the Constitutional Court erred in holding that Parliament contravened Article 89 in passing the said Act. It appears that the Constitutional Court misconstrued the decision of this Court in Constitutional Appeal No.1 of 2000: _**_P.K.Ssemoaerere_**_ _**__**__**_&_**__**__**__**_Two_**_ _**__**__**_Others_**_ _**__**__**_vs._**__**__**__**_Attorney_**_ _**__**__**_General._**__****_ We reiterate what the learned Chief Justice said therein: - _**"....the**_ _****__**procedure**_ _****__**provided**_ _****__**in**_ _****__**Article**_ _****__**257**_ _****__**A**_ _****__**does**_ _****__**not**_ _****__**apply to**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**amendment**_ _****__**of**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**Constitution**_ _****__**where**_ _****__**a**_ _****__**two-thirds majority**_ _****__**of**_ _****__**all**_ _****__**Members**_ _****__**of**_ _****__**Parliament**_ _****__**with**_ _****__**voting**_ _****__**rights**_ _****__**is required**_ _****__**to**_ _****__**pass**_ _****__**such**_ _****__**amendment.**__****__**The**_ _****__**procedure**_ _****__**of**_ _****__**voting by**_ _****__**"Ayes"**__****__**and**_ _****__**"Noes"**__****__**is**_ _****__**incapable**_ _****__**of**_ _****__**providing**_ _****__**accuracy and**_ _****__**certainty**_ _****__**that**_ _****__**the**_ _****__**necessary**_ _****__**numbers**_ _****__**of**_ _****__**Members**_ _****__**of**_ _**Parliament**_ _****__**required**_ _****__**to**_ _****__**pass**_ _****__**such**_ _****__**important**_ _****__**legislation**_ _****__**have been**_ _****__**obtained.**__****__**_The_**_ _**__**__**_procedure_**_ _**__**__**_may_**_ _**__**__**_be_**_ _**__**__**_applicable_**_ _**__**__**_in deciding_**_ _**__**__**_questions_**_ _**__**__**_where_**_ _**__**__**_only_**_ _**__**__**_simple_**_ _**__**__**_majority_**_ _**__**__**_of_**_ _**__**__**_Members_**_ _**_of_**_ _**__**__**_Parliament_**_ _**__**__**_present_**_ _**__**__**_and_**_ _**__**__**_voting_**_ _**__**__**_is_**_ _**__**__**_required_**_ _**__**__**_in_**_ _**__**__**_non-contentious_**_ _**__**__**_matters,_**__**__**__**_as_**_ _**__**__**_provided_**_ _**__**__**_under_**_ _**__**__**_Article_**_ _**__**__**_89_**_ _**__**__**_(1)_**__**__**__**_of_**_ _**__**__**_[the Constitution](/akn/ug/act/statute/1995/constitution)._**__**"**__****_(underlining supplied) Accordingly, grounds 10 and 11 succeed. **Grounds 4, 7 and 8:** Grounds 4, 7 and 8 are as follows: _"4.____The_ ___learned_ ___Judges_ ___of_ ___the_ ___Constitutional_ ___Court_ ___erred in_ ___law_ ___and_ ___in_ ___fact_ ___in_ ___holding_ ___that_ ___the_ ___Referendum which_ ___was_ ___held_ ___on_ ___29_ _th_ ___June,____2000_ ___was_ ___invalid;_ 7. _The_ ___learned_ ___Judges_ ___of_ ___the_ ___Constitutional_ ___Court_ ___erred in_ ___law_ ___and_ ___in_ ___fact_ ___in_ ___holding_ ___that_ ___the_ ___2000 Referendum_ ___on_ ___choice_ ___of_ ___Political_ ___Systems_ ___was_ ___held in_ ___contravention_ ___of_ ___Article_ __**69 o** _f_ ___the_ ___Constitution._ 8. _The_ ___learned_ ___Judges_ ___of_ ___the_ ___Constitutional_ ___Court_ ___erred in_ ___law_ ___and_ ___in_ ___fact_ ___in_ ___holding_ ___that_ ___the_ ___people_ ___of Uganda_ ___in_ ___a_ ___referendum_ ___held_ ___on_ ___29_ _th_ ___June_ ___2000_ ___never adopted_ ___a_ ___political_ ___system_ ___under_ ___Article_ ___69_ ___of_ ___[the Constitution](/akn/ug/act/statute/1995/constitution);"_ On the face of it, the question whether the referendum held on 29th June 2000 was valid or invalid was not expressly raised in the petition, which was filed before the referendum was held, nor were the pleadings amended at anytime subsequently to expressly include it. Consequently, the question did not expressly feature among the framed issues. However, in our view, it was implicit in the pleading in paragraph 1 (e) of the petition, wherein it was alleged that omission to enact a law allowing political party activity would inhibit the holding of a free and fair referendum and thereby contravene Article 69. This led to framing of the fourth issue, which reads thus - _"(d)____Whether_ ___or_ ___not_ ___the_ ___absence_ ___of_ ___a_ ___law_ ___regulating_ ___the activities_ ___of_ ___political_ ___organisations_ ___as_ ___provided_ ___under Article_ ___269_ ___of_ ___the_ ___Constitution_ ___contravened_ ___Article_ ___69_ ___by perpetuating_ ___a_ ___political_ ___environment_ ___under_ ___which_ ___the people_ ___of_ ___Uganda_ ___could_ ___not_ ___make_ ___a_ ___free_ ___and_ ___fair_ ___choice_ ___of the_ ___political_ ___system_ ___as_ ___to_ ___how_ ___they_ ___should_ ___be_ ___governed."_ Clearly, in answering this issue it was inevitable to consider if the referendum held on 29th June 2000 contravened Article 69. Accordingly, we hold that although it was not expressly framed as an issue, the question was properly before the Constitutional Court, and that the court was not in error to consider and make a decision on it. We have considered if, in absence of a valid law passed pursuant to Article 271(4), the referendum can be construed as validly held on authority of Articles 69 and 271(3). Article 69 generally entrenches the right of the people of Uganda to adopt a political system of their own choice, while Article 271(3) fixed the period in mandatory terms, when they would for the first time exercise that right in a referendum. In our view, it could be so construed if the referendum was free and fair in compliance with the stipulation in Article 69. The Constitutional Court found that because of the legal regime prevailing at the material time, political parties were not free to canvass for the multiparty political system to which they subscribed, and concluded that the referendum held on 29th June 2000 could not have been free and fair as required by Article 69. While we would not fault that finding as a postulate, we hold that it was not a proper basis for granting the relief of the declaration sought. Notwithstanding the uncontradicted affidavit evidence of Hon. Zachary Olum to the effect that he and other members of the Democratic Party were, on a number of occasions and in diverse places, prevented by the police from holding public meetings, the actual conduct of the referendum and the results thereof were not challenged nor inquired into to determine if it was, or was not free and fair. As a consequence of the referendum, the movement political system was retained in place, and the affairs of State have been conducted on that basis for over four years. To declare the referendum a nullity would have far reaching consequences. In our view, these were compelling circumstances in respect of which the Constitutional Court ought to have exercised its discretion to decline granting the second declaration. To the extent that grounds 4, 7 and 8 relate to the second declaration, they succeed. **Gr** _o_**und 14:** Ground 14 states: _"14_ ___The_ ___learned_ ___Judges_ ___of_ ___the_ ___Constitutional_ ___Court_ ___erred in_ ___law_ ___and_ ___in_ ___fact_ ___in_ ___holding_ ___that_ ___the_ ___doctrine_ ___of prospective_ ___over-ruling_ ___could_ ___not_ ___apply_ ___to_ ___the petition."_ In view of our decision on the foregoing grounds, we do not find it necessary to give a decision on this ground. In the result, by unanimous decision, this appeal partially succeeds. **Declarations and orders.** 1. In view of our holding on grounds 9,10 and 11, the first declaration made by the Constitutional Court, to the effect that the Referendum (Political Systems) Act 2000 contravened Articles 89 and 90, cannot stand. We set it aside. 1. In view of our holding on grounds 5 and 6, the third declaration made by the Constitutional Court is upheld but we modify it to read thus: - _"The_ ___enactment_ ___of_ ___the_ ___Referendum_ ___(Political Systems)____Act_ ___2000_ ___on_ ___7_ _th_ ___June_ ___2000_ ___was_ ___inconsistent with_ ___provisions_ ___of_ ___Article_ ___271(2)____and_ ___rendered_ ___that Act_ ___null_ ___and_ ___void."_ 3. In view of our holding in respect of grounds 4, 7 and 8 we set aside the second declaration made by the Constitutional Court to the effect that the holding of the referendum contravened Article 69, and substitute it with an order declining to make a declaration in that regard. **4.** We order that each party bears its costs of this appeal but the respondents get half of the costs in the Constitutional Court. _**Dated at Mengo this 2**_ _**nd**_ _**day of September 2004.**_ B J Odoki CHIEF JUSTICE A H O Oder JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT J W N Tsekooko JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT A N Karokora JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT J N Mulenga JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT _G_ W Kanyeihamba JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT J M Ogoola AG JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT #### __Related documents #### More documents like this one ▲ To the top >