Wakilii

Uganda Law Society v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition 8 of 2000)

Constitutional Court · [2001] UGCC 4 · 2001 Petition Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional petition under Articles 3(4) and 137 challenging the validity of the Constitutional Amendment Act No. 13 of 2000, heard as a test case
Decision
Petition dismissed; impugned Constitutional Amendment Act No. 13 of 2000 upheld as validly enacted

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 unanimously dismissed the petition. It held that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 258(1) by addition, variation or repeal — read with the definition of amendment in Article 257(9) — encompassed the insertion of new articles and the replacement of repealed provisions, so Parliament did not exceed its mandate. The 14-day spacing requirement in Article 262(1) applied only to amendments under Articles 259 and 260, not to the general amendment in issue. The burden of proving non-compliance lay on the petitioners under section 102 of the Evidence Act, and official acts are presumed regularly performed; the petitioners adduced no evidence rebutting that presumption. The petition therefore failed.

Facts

The Constitution (Amendment) Bill No. 16 of 2000 was published in the Gazette on 28 August 2000 and was passed and assented to on 1 September 2000 as the Constitutional Amendment Act No. 13 of 2000. The Act amended Articles 88, 89 and 90 of the Constitution, which had been gazetted, but also amended Articles 97 and 257 (which had not been published) and inserted a new Article 257A. Aggrieved by the manner in which Parliament passed the Act, the Uganda Law Society and Justin Semuyaba, a practising advocate, petitioned the Constitutional Court. The petition was heard as a test case, with the related Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 2000 stayed pending its determination. The petitioners contended that Parliament exceeded its amendment powers, failed to comply with publication, committee and spacing requirements, and that no Speaker's certificate accompanied the Bill for assent.

Issues

  1. Whether Parliament followed the proper procedure provided for under the Constitution when enacting the Constitutional Amendment Act No. 13 of 2000.

Orders

  • Petition dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.
  • Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 2000 (Karuhanga Chapaa and 2 Others v Attorney General), stayed pending this decision, also fails with each party bearing its own costs.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Amendment of the Constitution — Scope of Parliament's power under Article 258(1)
Parliament's power under Article 258(1) to amend the Constitution by addition, variation or repeal, read with the definition of amendment in Article 257(9), includes the insertion of new articles and the replacement of a repealed provision with a different provision, and Parliament does not exceed its mandate by doing so.
Constitutional Law — Constitutional Amendment — 14-day spacing of readings under Article 262(1)
The requirement under Article 262(1) for at least 14 sitting days between the second and third readings applies only to amendments of provisions referred to in Articles 259 and 260, and does not apply to a general amendment made under Article 258.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Presumption of regularity of official acts
A petitioner who alleges that Parliament failed to follow the proper procedure bears the burden of proving that fact under section 102 of the Evidence Act, and acts of public authorities are presumed to have been legitimately and regularly done (omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta) until the contrary is proved.
Constitutional Law — Assent — Speaker's certificate under Article 262(2)(a)
The Speaker's certificate required by Article 262(2)(a) is a procedural and administrative requirement that does not go to the root of the law-making process; its absence is not fatal to and does not render void a constitutional amendment Act that has received the President's assent.
Statutory Interpretation — Preamble — Effect on the purpose of a statute
A preamble is not part of a statute; it merely sets out the reasons for the Act and does not restrict or alter the sole purpose or operation of the enacting provisions, so recitals such as ratification of past acts do not deprive an amendment Bill of its character as one whose purpose is to amend the Constitution.
Constitutional Law — Legislative Procedure — Publication of Bills and amendments
Gazetting of a Bill is not a constitutional requirement but is provided for under the Rules of Procedure of Parliament, which Parliament may waive for an urgent Bill; a Bill is a working document that may be amended during debate and new amendments may be introduced without separate publication.

Legislation cited (20)

  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.2
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.3(4)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.88
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.89
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.90
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.92
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.94
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.97
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.257(9)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.258
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.259
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.260
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.261
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.262
  • Evidence Act s.102
  • Rules of Procedure of Parliament r.44
  • Rules of Procedure of Parliament r.91(1)
  • Rules of Procedure of Parliament r.96(1)
  • Rules of Procedure of Parliament r.100(5)

Cases cited (3)

  • Zachary Olum and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 7 of 2000)
  • Karuhanga Chapaa and 2 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 2000)
  • Paul K. Ssemogerere and 2 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 7 of 2000)
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.