Wakilii

Twase v Attorney General (Consitutional Petition 45 of 2017)

Constitutional Court · [2024] UGCC 16 · 2024 Petition Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional petition challenging the State's failure to promote public awareness of the Constitution under Article 4
Decision
Petition dismissed for want of jurisdiction; enforcement remedy lies before the ordinary courts under Article 50(1)

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 Court held that the petition did not invoke its jurisdiction because the obligations imposed on the State by Article 4 of the Constitution—to translate, teach and publicise the Constitution—are clear and require no constitutional interpretation. A complaint that those obligations have not been complied with is a matter of enforcement or application of the Constitution, for which the remedy lies under Article 50(1) before the ordinary courts, not the Constitutional Court whose jurisdiction under Article 137 is confined to interpretation. The Court declined to determine the remaining issues and dismissed the petition with no order as to costs.

Facts

The petitioner challenged the office of the Attorney General for allegedly failing to ensure the translation of the Constitution into local Ugandan languages and its dissemination as required by Article 4(a), and for failing to provide for the teaching of the Constitution in educational institutions and through the media contrary to Article 4(b). He sought a directive compelling the State to comply with Article 4 and a permanent injunction restraining further amendment of the Constitution before such compliance. The respondent denied any omission, asserting that the Law Reform Commission had published a simplified version and translated the Constitution into eleven languages, that the National Curriculum Development Centre had incorporated its teaching into the school curriculum, and that the Uganda Human Rights Commission had run media campaigns. The respondent further raised a preliminary point that the petition disclosed no question of constitutional interpretation.

Issues

  1. Whether the petition raises any question requiring constitutional interpretation so as to invoke the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.
  2. Whether the State has fulfilled its obligation to promote public awareness of the Constitution under Article 4.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Petition dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court — Article 137 — Interpretation Distinguished from Enforcement
The jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court under Article 137(1) is confined to the interpretation of the Constitution; unless the question before it depends for its determination on the interpretation or construction of a constitutional provision, the Court has no jurisdiction.
Constitutional Law — Enforcement of Rights — Article 50 — Where Provision is Clear and Needs No Interpretation
Where a constitutional provision is clear and unambiguous and a complaint concerns non-compliance with it rather than its meaning, the matter is one of enforcement or application falling under Article 50(1) before the ordinary competent courts, and not within the interpretative jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.
Constitutional Law — Redress under Article 137(4) — Incidental to Interpretation
Redress under Article 137(4) may be granted by the Constitutional Court only where it flows directly from and is incidental to the exercise of its interpretative function under Article 137(3); a mere allegation of constitutional breach does not ipso facto invoke that jurisdiction.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 4(a)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 4(b)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 50(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 137(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 137(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 137(4)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 1
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 3
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 National Objective XXIX

Cases cited (4)

  • Mbabali Jude v Edward Kiwanuka Sekandi (Constitutional Petition No. 28 of 2012)
  • Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council & Another (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Attorney General v Major General David Tinyefuza
  • Stephen Asiimwe & Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 15 of 2016)
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.