The Constitutional Court of Uganda: Blurring/misunderstanding its jurisdiction

• Author: Mujuzi, J.D.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.47348/JCLA/v9/i1a2
• Published date: 21 April 2022
• Date: 21 April 2022
• Citation: (2022) 9(1) Journal of Comparative Law in Africa 24
• Pages: 24-66

24

https://doi.org/10.47348/JCLA/v9/i1a2

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UGANDA:

BLURRING/MISUNDERSTANDING ITS

JURISDICTION

Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi*

Abstract

Article 137 of the Constitution of Uganda (the Constitution) provides for the

jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court (the Court) to interpret the Constitution

and to determine whether any law or conduct—act or omission—is contrary to the

Constitution. The drafting history of art 137 shows that the court’s jurisdiction to

interpret the Constitution is different from that of declaring whether any law or

conduct is inconsistent with the Constitution. However, the jurisprudence of the

Court shows that it has blurred the distinction between these two mandates. In this

article, the author relies on the drafting history of art 137 to argue, inter alia, that

the Court’s approach in this regard is debatable. It is also argued that, although

the intention of the drafters of the Constitution was that the Court was not to

be the first and final court in matters of constitutional interpretation, the literal

interpretation of art 137 and the jurisprudence on art 137 show the opposite. It is

further argued that in some instances the Court has misunderstood its jurisdiction

under art 137(5) and (6) and that the Court does not have the power to declare

legislation unconstitutional under art 137(5). It is also submitted that the Court’s

argument that its jurisdiction is limited to interpreting the Constitution or that any

petition before it cannot be resolved without first interpreting the Constitution is

erroneous. It is further argued that Uganda may have to follow the South African

model in which other courts, such as the High Court and the Supreme Court of

Appeal, are also empowered to declare legislation unconstitutional.

Keywords: Uganda; constitutional court; jurisdiction; interpretation;

art 137; drafting history

Résumé

L’art 137 de la Constitution de L’Ouganda (la Constitution) prévoit la compétence

de la Cour Constitutionnelle (la Cour): interpréter la Constitution et déterminer

si une loi ou un comportement – acte ou omission – est contraire à la Constitution.

L’historique de la rédaction de l’art 137 montre que la compétence de la Cour pour

interpréter la Constitution est totalement différente de celle de déclarer si une loi

ou un comportement est contraire à la Constitution. Cependant, la jurisprudence

de la Cour montre qu’elle a brouillé la distinction entre ces deux mandats. Dans

cet article, l’auteur s’appuie sur l’historique de la rédaction de l’art 137 pour

soutenir, entre autres, que l’approche de la Cour a cet égard est discutable. Il affirme

* Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, University of the Western Cape, South Africa.

Email: djmujuzi@gmail.com. I am grateful to Prof Joe Oloka-Onyango, Makerere University,

for the comments on the draft of this article. The usual caveats apply.

(2022) 9(1) Journal of Comparative Law in Africa 24

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UGANDA: BLURRING/

MISUNDERSTANDING ITS JURISDICTION 25

https://doi.org/10.47348/JCLA/v9/i1a2

également que, bien que l’intention des rédacteurs de la Constitution fût que la

Cour ne soit pas la première et la dernière juridiction en matière d’interprétation

constitutionnelle, l’interprétation littérale de l’art 137 et la jurisprudence sur

l’art 137 montrent le contraire. Il est également avancé qu’il existe des cas où la

Cour a mal compris sa compétence au titre de l’art 137, paragraphes 5 et 6, et que

la Cour n’a pas le pouvoir de déclarer une législation inconstitutionnelle au titre de

l’art 137, paragraphe 5. Il est également soutenu que l’argument de la Cour selon

lequel sa compétence est limitée à l’interprétation de la Constitution ou que toute

requête devant elle ne peut être résolue sans interpréter d’abord la Constitution est

erroné. Il est également avancé que l’Ouganda pourrait devoir suivre le modèle sud-

africain dans lequel d’autres tribunaux tels que la Haute Cour et la Cour suprême

d’appel sont également habilités à déclarer la législation inconstitutionnelle.

Mots-clés : Ouganda; Cour constitutionnelle; compétence; interprétation;

art 137; historique de la rédaction

Introduction

In 1995, Uganda adopted a new constitution. Article 137 of the

Constitution provides for the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court

(the Court). It states that:

(1) Any question as to the interpretation of this Constitution shall be

determined by the Court of Appeal sitting as the constitutional court.

(2) …

(3) A person who alleges that— (a) an Act of Parliament or any other

law or anything in or done under the authority of any law; or (b) any

act or omission by any person or authority, is inconsistent with or in

contravention of a provision of this Constitution, may petition the

constitutional court for a declaration to that effect, and for redress where

appropriate.

(4) Where upon determination of the petition under clause (3) of this

article the constitutional court considers that there is need for redress

in addition to the declaration sought, the constitutional court may—

(a) grant an order of redress; or (b) refer the matter to the High Court to

investigate and determine the appropriate redress.

(5) Where any question as to the interpretation of this Constitution

arises in any proceedings in a court of law other than a field court martial,

the court— (a) may, if it is of the opinion that the question involves a

substantial question of law; and (b) shall, if any party to the proceedings

requests it to do so, refer the question to the constitutional court for

decision in accordance with clause (1) of this article.

(6) Where any question is referred to the constitutional court under

clause (5) of this article, the constitutional court shall give its decision on

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

26 JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LAW IN AFRICA VOL 9, NO 1, 2022

https://doi.org/10.47348/JCLA/v9/i1a2

the question, and the court in which the question arises shall dispose of

the case in accordance with that decision.

The above provisions show that the Constitutional Court has the

following five mandates: to interpret the Constitution; to decide whether

any Act of Parliament is inconsistent with or in contravention of the

Constitution; to determine whether ‘any other law’ other than an Act of

Parliament is inconsistent with or in contravention of the Constitution;

to determine whether ‘anything in or done under the authority of any

law’ is inconsistent with or in contravention of the Constitution; and to

determine whether ‘any act or omission by any person or authority’ is

inconsistent with or in contravention of the Constitution. The drafting

history and a literal interpretation of art 137 also show that the Court

has the above five mandates. However, its jurisprudence shows that it

has taken the view that its only mandate is to interpret the Constitution

and that, in doing so, it must follow the guidelines in art 137(3). In this

article, the author argues that the drafting history of art 137 and its literal

interpretation show that the mandate of the Court is not limited to

interpreting the Constitution. The jurisprudence of the Court also shows

that, although it has held that it does not have the mandate to enforce

human rights unless the issue of human rights enforcement is incidental

to interpreting the Constitution, many of its decisions show that the

Court has blurred the distinction between its jurisdiction to interpret the

Constitution and its mandate to enforce human rights. The author argues

that the Court will have to take into consideration the drafting history

of art 137 in order to ensure that its jurisprudence does not go against

the letter and spirit of art 137.1 The author also argues that, although the

intention of the drafters of the Constitution was that the Court was not

to be the first and final court in matters of constitutional interpretation,

a literal interpretation of art 137 and the jurisprudence on art 137 show

the opposite. The author also argues that, although the word ‘may’ is used

in art 137(5), once another court comes to the conclusion that there is a

need for the Constitution to be interpreted, it must refer the case to the

Constitutional Court. It is further argued that in some cases the Court

has misunderstood its jurisdiction under art 137(5) and (6) and that the

Court does not have the power to declare legislation unconstitutional

under art 137(5). The author will consider the drafting history of art 137

before discussing the jurisprudence of the Court.

1 Although in some instances the Court states that it relies on the drafting history of the

Constitution to exercise its jurisdiction under art 137, it never refers to the Constituent Assembly

debates. See, for example, Nampongo and Anor v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 43 of

2012) [2021] UGCC 37 (9 February 2021) at 11.

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd