Wakilii

Unwanted Witness Uganda and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 16 of 2017)

Constitutional Court · [2021] UGCC 40 · 2021 Petition Struck Out ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional petition under Article 137(3) challenging the executive shutdown of social media and mobile money services as unconstitutional
Decision
Petition struck out for raising no question of constitutional interpretation; matter left to be pursued in another competent court or tribunal under Article 50

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 struck out the petition challenging the 2016 election-period shutdown of social media and mobile money services. It held that under Article 137 its jurisdiction is confined to questions requiring interpretation of the Constitution. The provisions said to be violated (Articles 29(1)(a), 22(1) and 45) were clear and unambiguous, and the petitioners sought no interpretation of them; they merely alleged contravention through executive acts and omissions. Such enforcement of guaranteed rights lay with other competent courts or tribunals under Article 50. The petition therefore disclosed no question of constitutional interpretation and could not be entertained. No order as to costs was made because the petition appeared to be filed in the public interest.

Facts

The petitioners challenged the respondent's blocking and shutting down of social media platforms and mobile money transfer services during the February 2016 presidential, parliamentary and local government elections, and again during the May 2016 swearing-in of the President-Elect. Supporting affidavits described resulting losses: one deponent lost a US$500 contributor's fee after the internet outage caused him to miss a publication deadline; a student was stranded after being unable to withdraw mobile money and missed a university application deadline; and others could not send money for a relative's medical care. The respondent admitted ordering telecommunication operators and internet service providers to suspend the services, but contended the suspension was on account of national security and the public interest, to secure peace and order against the risk of incitement of violence through unregulated content, and was permissible under Article 43 of the Constitution. The respondent also objected that the petition raised no question requiring constitutional interpretation.

Issues

  1. Whether the petition raised a question requiring interpretation of the Constitution so as to fall within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court under Article 137.
  2. Whether the blocking and shutting down of social media platforms and mobile money transfer services during the February 2016 general elections violated Articles 29(1)(a), 22(1) and 45 of the Constitution.
  3. Whether the petitioners were entitled to the remedies they sought.

Orders

  • Petition struck out.
  • No order as to costs.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court — Article 137 — Interpretation versus enforcement
The jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court under Article 137 is confined to questions requiring the interpretation of the Constitution; a petition that alleges only contravention of clear and unambiguous provisions through the acts or omissions of a person or authority, without raising any question as to the meaning of those provisions, falls outside that jurisdiction.
Constitutional Law — Enforcement of rights — Article 50 — Appropriate forum
Where alleged violations of guaranteed rights require enforcement rather than interpretation of the Constitution, the appropriate remedy lies with any other competent court or tribunal under Article 50, and not by direct petition to the Constitutional Court.
Human Rights — Freedom of expression — Article 29(1)(a) — Limitation under Article 43
The freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 29(1)(a), including freedom of the press and other media, is not absolute; any limitation imposed in the public interest under Article 43 is itself limited to what is acceptable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.
Civil Procedure — Constitutional petitions — Pleadings — Disclosure of a question for interpretation
A constitutional petition must on its face disclose a genuine question as to the interpretation of the Constitution; where the petitioner fails to frame such a question, the petition discloses no reasonable cause of action and is liable to be struck out.

Legislation cited (17)

  • Constitution of Uganda art.137(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.137(3)(a)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.137(3)(b)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.137(5)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.137(6)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.29(1)(a)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.22(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.45
  • Constitution of Uganda art.43
  • Constitution of Uganda art.43(2)(c)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.50
  • Constitution of Uganda art.41
  • Constitution of Uganda art.274
  • Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules S.I 91 of 2015 r.3
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.28
  • Uganda Communications Act 2013
  • Penal Code Act Cap 120 ss.39, 40, 41, 179

Cases cited (12)

  • Attorney General v Major General David Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Ismael Serugo v Kampala City Council (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Charles Onyango Obbo and Andrew Mujuni Mwenda v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2002)
  • Andrew Mujuni Mwenda and The East African v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 12 of 2005)
  • Edward Kayima Lugonvu and 3 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 24 of 2009)
  • Mbabaali Jude v Hon. Edward Kiwanuka Ssekandi (Constitutional Petition No. 28 of 2012)
  • Anuradha Bhasin and Others v Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1031 of 2019)
  • Modern Dental College and Research v State of Madhya Pradesh (2019) 7 SCC 353
  • R v Zundel [1992] 2 S.C.R 731
  • Edmonton Journal v Alberta (AG) (1989) 2 SCR 1326
  • Rangarajan v Jagjivan Ram and Others 1989 (2) SCC 574
  • Union of India & Others v Jagjivan (1990) LRC (Court) 424 -427
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.