Wakilii

Uganda Journalists Safety Committee and Anor v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 1997)

Constitutional Court · [1997] UGCC 8 · 1997 Preliminary Objections Upheld ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objections to a constitutional petition for declarations brought directly to the Constitutional Court
Decision
Petition struck out with costs to the Respondent on preliminary objections

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Constitutional Court upheld all four preliminary objections and struck out the petition. It held that redress under Article 50 must be sought by ordinary civil action in a competent court, not by petition under Article 137; that the petition was time barred, the 30-day limit in Rule 4(1) running from the date of conviction (19 December 1995) and not the date of the affidavit, with no authority supporting the argument that limitation does not apply to constitutional interpretation; that it was improper to pronounce on questions also raised in the 2nd Petitioner's pending criminal appeal; and that a petition unaccompanied by the required affidavit is invalid, that requirement being mandatory.

Facts

The 1st Petitioner, the Uganda Journalists Safety Committee, is an NGO advocating press freedom and journalists' rights. The 2nd Petitioner, Haruna Kanabi, a journalist and editor of the Shariat Newspaper, was convicted on 19 December 1995 by the Buganda Road Chief Magistrate's Court of sedition and publication of false news under sections 41, 42 and 50 of the Penal Code Act, and was fined or imprisoned in default. His appeal to the High Court was dismissed on 13 November 1996, and a further appeal to the Court of Appeal remained pending. The Petitioners filed this petition on 27 May 1997 seeking declarations that sections 37, 41, 42 and 50 of the Penal Code Act are inconsistent with the Constitution and violate the 2nd Petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 29, 30 and 41. The petition was headed under Articles 50 and 137 but stated in paragraph 6 that it was brought under Article 50. No affidavit was filed by the 1st Petitioner. The Attorney General raised preliminary objections.

Issues

  1. Whether the petition was properly before the Constitutional Court when brought (partly) under Article 50 rather than Article 137 of the Constitution.
  2. Whether the petition was time barred for being filed outside the 30-day period in Rule 4(1) of Legal Notice No. 4 of 1996.
  3. Whether the Constitutional Court should determine the constitutional questions while the 2nd Petitioner's convictions and sentences were the subject of a pending appeal to the Court of Appeal.
  4. Whether the petition was valid where it was not accompanied by an affidavit from the 1st Petitioner as required by Rule 3(6) of Legal Notice No. 4 of 1996.

Orders

  • The preliminary objections are upheld.
  • The petition is struck out.
  • Costs to the Respondent.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court — Distinction between Article 137 interpretation and Article 50 redress
The Constitutional Court is created by Article 137 solely to interpret the Constitution, whether on a reference under Legal Notice No. 3 of 1996 or by petition under Legal Notice No. 4 of 1996; it is not the proper forum for a person seeking redress under Article 50, which must be sought by ordinary civil action in a competent court of judicature.
Civil Procedure — Limitation — Time for filing a constitutional petition under Rule 4(1) of Legal Notice No. 4 of 1996
A petition under Article 137 must be lodged within 30 days of the breach complained of under Rule 4(1) of Legal Notice No. 4 of 1996, and the period runs from the date of the breach itself, not the date of the supporting affidavit; the time limit is not displaced merely because the matter concerns constitutional interpretation.
Constitutional Law — Constitutional petition — Restraint where the same questions are the subject of a pending appeal
Where the constitutional questions raised in a petition are the same as those contested in a pending criminal appeal, and absent any reference from the courts handling that matter, it is improper for the Constitutional Court to pronounce on them.
Civil Procedure — Constitutional petition — Mandatory requirement of an accompanying affidavit under Rule 3(6) of Legal Notice No. 4 of 1996
A constitutional petition must be accompanied by an affidavit setting out the facts of the grievance as required by Rule 3(6) of Legal Notice No. 4 of 1996; that requirement is mandatory and there can be no valid petition without it.

Legislation cited (16)

  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.50
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137(5)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.29
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.30
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.41
  • Penal Code Act (Cap 106) s.37
  • Penal Code Act (Cap 106) s.41
  • Penal Code Act (Cap 106) s.42
  • Penal Code Act (Cap 106) s.50
  • Judicature Statute 1996
  • Interpretation of the Constitution (Procedure) Rules 1992 (Modification) Direction 1996 (Legal Notice No. 3 of 1996) s.2
  • Rules of the Constitutional Court (Petitions for declarations under article 137) Directions 1996 (Legal Notice No. 4 of 1996) r.3(6)
  • Rules of the Constitutional Court (Petitions for declarations under article 137) Directions 1996 (Legal Notice No. 4 of 1996) r.4(1)
  • Rules of the Constitutional Court (Petitions for declarations under article 137) Directions 1996 (Legal Notice No. 4 of 1996) r.12(1)
  • NGO Registration Statute 1989
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.