Wakilii

Asiimwe & 3 Others v Attorney General (Consitutional Petition 15 of 2016)

Constitutional Court · [2022] UGCC 13 · 2022 Petition Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional petition under Article 137(3) challenging the constitutionality of statutory and regulatory provisions on dual citizenship
Decision
Petition dismissed; all declarations and orders sought refused

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 dismissed a petition challenging the eighteen-year minimum age for dual citizenship under section 19C(f) of the Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control (Amendment) Act and the immigration fees imposed on diaspora Ugandans and their children. The Court held the petition properly invoked its interpretative jurisdiction but found section 19C(f) consistent with Article 10, being derived from the Article 15(1) age of consent and read in harmony with Article 15(6). As a provision enacted by dint of a constitutional mandate, it fell within Article 21(5) and was not discriminatory. No violation of children's rights under Article 34(3) was shown. Immigration controls on non-citizens were justified under Article 21(4)(c). Petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Facts

The four petitioners are Ugandan citizens by birth who also hold citizenship by registration of the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States and South Africa respectively. They challenged section 19C(f) of the Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control (Amendment) Act, which requires applicants for dual citizenship to be at least eighteen years of age, and Items 2 and 3 of the Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control (Fees) Regulations 2009, which imposed a US$400 dual citizenship fee on diaspora Ugandans plus student entry visa fees and dependant passes on their children, and a US$100 entry visa on Ugandans by birth without passports. The petitioners contended these provisions discriminated against children and diaspora citizens and denied access to passports and education. The Attorney General opposed the petition, arguing the age requirement derived from Article 15(1), that the impugned fees regulations had been revoked and replaced, and that immigration controls on non-citizens were lawful.

Issues

  1. Whether the petition raises issues for constitutional interpretation.
  2. Whether section 19C(f) of the Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control (Amendment) Act is inconsistent with Articles 10, 21(1), (2) and (3), and 34 of the Constitution.
  3. Whether the practice of levying dual citizenship fees, entry permit fees, student visa fees and dependant fees is inconsistent with Articles 10 and 21(1), (2) and (3) of the Constitution.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Petition dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction — Constitutional Court — Article 137 interpretative mandate
The Constitutional Court's jurisdiction is properly invoked where the gravamen of the matter is the interpretation of specified constitutional provisions to determine the constitutionality of an impugned law or action; a petitioner's pursuit of remedies does not in itself relegate the matter to enforcement under Article 50(1).
Statutory Interpretation — Constitutional construction — Rule of harmony
The Constitution must be read together as an integral whole with no provision destroying another; accordingly Article 15(1) and Article 15(6) must be interpreted in harmony to give full effect to the framers' intention.
Immigration — Citizenship — Dual citizenship — Minimum age of consent
Section 19C(f), which imposes a minimum age of eighteen for any person applying for dual citizenship, is derived from the Article 15(1) age of consent and is not inconsistent with the right to citizenship by birth under Article 10 of the Constitution.
Human Rights — Equality and non-discrimination — Article 21(5) saving provision
A statutory provision enacted by dint of a constitutional mandate, here Article 15(6), falls within Article 21(5) and cannot be held inconsistent with the equality and non-discrimination guarantees in Article 21(1), (2) and (3) of the Constitution.
Human Rights — Children's rights — Article 34(3) — Deprivation by reason of belief
Article 34(3) prohibits depriving a child of medical treatment, education or other social or economic benefit by reason of religious or other beliefs; absent evidence that any deprivation was by reason of such beliefs, levying student visa and entry fees does not contravene Article 34(3).
Immigration — Entry controls on non-citizens — Article 21(4)(c) justification
Immigration control laws fall within measures acceptable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under Article 21(4)(c); non-citizens, including children holding another citizenship, do not enjoy the Article 29(2) right of free entry and exit and may lawfully be subjected to visas, passes and attendant fees.
Constitutional Law — Costs — Public interest litigation
Although costs ordinarily follow the event under section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, a constitutional petition raising critical questions of public interest warrants a departure from the general rule, justifying no order as to costs.

Legislation cited (13)

  • Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control (Amendment) Act 2009 s.19C(f)
  • Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control (Amendment) Act s.19F(2)
  • Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control Act Cap. 66 s.19
  • Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control (Fees) Regulations 2009 (SI No. 53 of 2009) Items 2 and 3
  • Uganda Citizenship and Immigrations Control Regulations (SI No. 76 of 2004) reg.5
  • Constitution of Uganda art.10
  • Constitution of Uganda art.15
  • Constitution of Uganda art.21
  • Constitution of Uganda art.29(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.34(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.50
  • Constitution of Uganda art.137
  • Civil Procedure Act s.27(2)

Cases cited (14)

  • Attorney General v Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council & Another (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Alenyo v Chief Registrar, Courts of Judicature & 2 Others (Constitutional Petition No. 32 of 2014)
  • CEHURD & 3 Others v Attorney General & Another (Constitutional Petition No. 22 of 2015)
  • Alcon International Ltd v Standard Chartered Bank (U) Ltd & 2 Others (EACJ Appeal No. 3 of 2013)
  • Foundation for Human Rights Initiative v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 52 of 2011)
  • Joyce Nakachwa v Attorney General (2002) EA 495
  • Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare v Attorney General, AD 2012
  • Paul K. Semwogerere & 2 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2002)
  • Advocates for Natural Resources Governance and Development & 2 Others v Attorney General & Another (Constitutional Petition No. 40 of 2013)
  • Attorney General v Salvatori Abuki (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Uganda Law Society v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 52 of 2017)
  • Chae Chan Ping v United States, 130 U.S. 581 (1889)
  • P v Attorney General, Constitutional Petition No. 3 of 1999
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.