Wakilii

In the Matter of Muhwezi Katunguka and 2 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Cause 4 of 1998)

Constitutional Court · [1998] UGCC 1 · 1998 Preliminary Objection Upheld ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection on a point of law in two consolidated constitutional petitions challenging a parliamentary censure resolution.
Decision
Both petitions struck out as incompetent for want of admissible supporting evidence.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

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 a preliminary objection in two consolidated petitions challenging a parliamentary censure resolution. Section 15(1) of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act covers all proceedings of Parliament and its committees, not merely evidence given by non-members, and bars their use elsewhere without Parliament's leave. The Speaker's letter sufficed as leave for the Attorney General. The annexed documents were public documents under section 72 of the Evidence Act, of which only certified copies are admissible under section 75; the petitioners had filed uncertified copies. Articles 41 and 273 were irrelevant, the restriction being procedural. With the affidavit evidence inadmissible, the petitions were unsupported and incompetent, and were struck out with costs.

Facts

Two petitions, Constitutional Cause No. 4 of 1998 and Constitutional Case No. 6 of 1998, were consolidated. They challenged a resolution of Parliament made on 3rd March 1998 under Article 118 of the Constitution to censure Hon. Brig. Muhwezi, Minister of State in charge of Primary Education. In support, the petitioners annexed documents emanating from Parliament, including a report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Rules, Privileges and Discipline, petitions for censure, an affidavit of Hon. Patrick Kiggundu, and the Hansard report of proceedings of 17 and 18 February 1998. The documents were annexed to affidavits of persons who were neither members nor employees of Parliament. At the hearing, counsel for the Attorney General objected that the documents were used without the prior leave of Parliament required by section 15(1) of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act, and that the uncertified public documents were not properly before the court under section 75 of the Evidence Act.

Issues

  1. Whether section 15(1) of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act applies only to evidence given by non-members of Parliament, or to all proceedings of Parliament and its committees.
  2. Whether documents emanating from Parliament could be relied on as evidence without the prior leave of Parliament.
  3. Whether uncertified copies of public documents were admissible under section 75 of the Evidence Act.
  4. Whether Articles 41 and 273 of the Constitution entitled the petitioners to rely on the documents notwithstanding section 15(1).
  5. Whether, if the impugned documents were excluded, the remaining evidence could sustain the two petitions.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is upheld.
  • The two petitions are struck out.
  • The petitioners in both cases are ordered to pay costs to the Attorney General.

Key headnotes

Parliamentary Privilege — National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act s.15(1) — Scope of Protected Proceedings
Section 15(1) of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act is not restricted to evidence given by non-members summoned before Parliament; it covers all proceedings of Parliament and its committees, which may not be used as evidence elsewhere without the special leave of Parliament.
Public Documents — Admissibility — Evidence Act s.72 and s.75 — Requirement of Certified Copies
Documents emanating from parliamentary proceedings are public documents within the meaning of section 72 of the Evidence Act, and only their certified copies are admissible to prove their contents under section 75; uncertified copies are inadmissible.
Documentary Evidence — Genuineness — Burden of Proof
Where a document tendered as leave appears genuine on its face, the party producing it bears no duty to prove its genuineness; the burden shifts to the party challenging it to prove that it is not genuine.
Access to Information — Constitution arts.41 and 273 — Inapplicability to Procedural Restrictions
Articles 41 and 273 of the Constitution, concerning the right of access to state information, do not apply where the admissibility of documents is resisted on the procedural ground that section 15(1) prescribes the manner of accessing them, rather than on grounds of state security or individual privacy.

Legislation cited (8)

  • National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act (Cap 249) s.15(1)
  • Evidence Act s.72
  • Evidence Act s.75
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.118
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.41
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.273
  • Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Uganda Rule 171
  • Legal Notice No.4 of 1996 Rule 12(1)
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.