Uganda Law Society and Another v Attorney General of Uganda (Constitutional Petition No. 8 of 2000)

Constitutional Court · [2001] UGCC 5 · 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; the Constitutional Amendment Act No. 13 of 2000 upheld as validly enacted

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this 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 petition challenged the Constitutional Amendment Act No. 13 of 2000 on the sole ground that Parliament failed to follow the procedure for constitutional amendments. The court held that amendment by addition, variation, repeal and replacement (including inserting new articles such as 257A) is permissible under article 258(1), and that the 14-day spacing requirement in article 262(1) applies only to articles 259 and 260, not to general amendments under articles 258 and 261. Under section 102 of the Evidence Act the burden lay on the petitioners, who adduced no evidence beyond counsel's submissions; the presumption that official acts are regularly performed prevailed. The petition was dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs.

Facts

On 28 August 2000 the Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 16 of 2000 was published in the Gazette, proposing to amend articles 88, 89 and 90 of the Constitution. It was debated and passed into law as the Constitutional Amendment Act No. 13 of 2000 on 1 September 2000 and assented to the same day. As enacted, the Act amended not only the gazetted articles 88, 89 and 90 but also articles 97 and 257, which had not been published, and inserted a new article 257A. The petitioners, the Uganda Law Society and a practising advocate, challenged the Act, contending that Parliament exceeded its amendment powers, failed to observe committee scrutiny and the 14-day spacing between readings, amended unpublished provisions, and that no Speaker's certificate accompanied the Bill to the President. The petition was heard as a test case, with related petitions Nos. 6 and 7 of 2000 standing on its outcome. The petitioners relied only on the dates of publication, passing and assent.

Issues

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

Orders

The petition is dismissed.
Each party shall 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 — 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 includes amendment by replacement and the insertion of new articles; inserting a new provision such as article 257A is an amendment by addition and does not exceed the mandate conferred by article 258(1).

Constitutional Law — Amendment — Article 257(9) Definition of Amendment

Under article 257(9) a reference to amendment includes alteration, modification or re-enactment, the suspension or repeal of a provision and the making of a different provision in its place, so repeal and replacement effected by Parliament falls within the permitted meaning of amendment.

Constitutional Law — Amendment Procedure — Article 262(1) Spacing of Readings

The requirement in article 262(1) for a 14-day interval between the second and third readings applies only to amendments under articles 259 and 260; a Bill amending other provisions under articles 258 and 261 need only secure a two-thirds majority at the second and third readings and is not subject to the spacing requirement.

Constitutional Law — Parliamentary Procedure — Bill as a Working Document and Urgent Bills

Once a Bill has been published in accordance with the Rules of Procedure it is a working document that may be amended and have new provisions introduced during debate without further publication; an urgent Bill may, under the Rules, be taken through all its stages in a single day.

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; the President's assent, in the absence of contrary evidence, raises the inference that the required formalities were complied with.

Evidence — Burden of Proof — Presumption of Regularity of Official Acts

Under section 102 of the Evidence Act the burden of proving that Parliament did not comply with the procedure for constitutional amendment lies on the petitioner; absent cogent evidence, the maxim omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta applies and all things are presumed to have been done with due formality until the contrary is proved.

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.94(1)
Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.97
Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137
Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.257(9)
Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.257A
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)

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

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.