Wakilii

Centre for Public Interest Law v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 40 of 2015)

Constitutional Court · [2025] UGCC 5 · 2025 Petition Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional petition for interpretation of the constitutionality of the sub judice rule
Decision
Petition allowed in part: Rule 73 of the Rules of Procedure of Parliament declared unconstitutional to the extent it bars debate on sub judice matters; remaining declarations sought refused

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 sub judice rule is an acceptable and demonstrably justifiable limitation on freedom of expression and access to information under Article 43(2), because it protects the non-derogable right to a fair hearing and the independence of the judiciary. Rule 20 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations and restrictions on press reporting of pending proceedings were upheld as constitutional. However, Rule 73 of the Rules of Procedure of Parliament was declared unconstitutional in so far as it prohibits Parliament from debating sub judice matters, as this curtails Parliament's oversight role and the checks-and-balances doctrine. The denial of information by the Judicial Service Commission was upheld because the petitioner failed to follow the statutory access procedure.

Facts

The petitioner, a public-interest organisation, requested the Judicial Service Commission to disclose the interview report, candidates' results and the recommendation made to the President for appointment of the Deputy Chief Justice. The Commission declined on 25 June 2015, stating the appointment was being contested in court in Miscellaneous Cause No. 77 of 2015 (Simon Peter Esomu v Attorney General) and was therefore sub judice. The petitioner also challenged the sub judice rule itself, contending that Rule 73 (formerly Rule 64) of the Rules of Procedure of Parliament and Rule 20 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations unconstitutionally restrict freedom of expression and access to information. It pointed to occasions in February and July 2013 when the Speaker stopped parliamentary debate on alleged financial impropriety in the Prime Minister's office because the persons involved were before the courts. The respondent maintained that the sub judice rule is a recognised limitation protecting fair trial rights and the separation of powers.

Issues

  1. Whether Rule 73 (formerly Rule 64) of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Uganda and Rule 20 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations SI 267-2 on sub judice are inconsistent with or in contravention of the Constitution.
  2. Whether denying the petitioner information concerning the interview, results and recommendation for appointment of the Deputy Chief Justice is inconsistent with Articles 29(1)(a), 41(1) and 43(1) of the Constitution.
  3. Whether prohibiting any person, press or media from reporting on or commenting on court proceedings because they are sub judice is inconsistent with Articles 29(1)(a), 41(1) and 43(1) of the Constitution.
  4. Whether the sub judice rule is an acceptable and demonstrably justifiable limitation under Article 43(2) of the Constitution.
  5. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Rule 20 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations SI 267-2 is not inconsistent with or in contravention of the Constitution.
  • The sub judice rule is an acceptable and demonstrably justifiable limitation under Article 43(2) of the Constitution.
  • Denial of information concerning the interview and recommendation for the position of Deputy Chief Justice was not unconstitutional, the petitioner not having complied with the statutory access procedure.
  • Prohibiting any person, press or media from reporting on court proceedings on the ground of sub judice is not inconsistent with the Constitution.
  • Rule 73 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Uganda is unconstitutional in so far as it prohibits Parliament from discussing matters that are sub judice.
  • The petition succeeds in part. There shall be no order as to costs as it was brought in the public interest.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Limitation of Rights — Sub Judice Rule as a Justifiable Limitation under Article 43(2)
The sub judice rule is an acceptable and demonstrably justifiable limitation on the freedom of expression and access to information in a free and democratic society, as it protects the non-derogable right to a fair hearing and the integrity and independence of the courts.
Human Rights — Freedom of Expression and Access to Information — No Right is Absolute under Article 43(1)
The rights to freedom of speech and expression and to access information are not absolute; they are subject to permissible limitations where their enjoyment would prejudice the fundamental rights of others or the public interest.
Constitutional Law — Limitation Analysis — Proportionality Test
A limitation on a constitutional right is valid only where the legislative objective is sufficiently important to override the right, the measures are rationally connected to that objective and not arbitrary, and the means impair the right no more than is necessary to achieve the objective.
Constitutional Law — Separation of Powers — Parliamentary Oversight and Sub Judice
A rule barring Parliament from debating matters that are sub judice is unconstitutional in so far as it curtails Parliament's constitutional oversight role; the legislature must retain latitude to debate sub judice matters in furtherance of its mandate, subject to safeguards against prejudicing pending proceedings.
Administrative Law — Access to Information — Exhaustion of Statutory Procedure
A person aggrieved by a refusal of access to information must first exhaust the statutory complaint procedure under the Access to Information Act before invoking the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction; the Court will not usurp the powers of the Chief Magistrate.
Human Rights — Right to Privacy — Public Office and Public Scrutiny
Information held by the State on a private matter may be withheld to protect the right to privacy, but a person who applies for or holds public office is subject to public scrutiny and cannot invoke the right to privacy as a shield against access to information in which the public has an interest.

Legislation cited (19)

  • Constitution of Uganda art.2(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.8A
  • Constitution of Uganda art.27
  • Constitution of Uganda art.28
  • Constitution of Uganda art.29(1)(a)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.40(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.41(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.41(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.43(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.43(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.44
  • Constitution of Uganda art.50
  • Constitution of Uganda art.79
  • Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Uganda, SI 30 of 2021, Rule 73 (formerly Rule 64)
  • Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations SI 267-2 Rule 20
  • Access to Information Act 2005 s.5
  • Access to Information Act 2005 s.11
  • Access to Information Act 2005 s.37
  • Judicial Service Act s.16

Cases cited (29)

  • David Tinswire v Attorney General, [2017] UGCC 11
  • Charles Onyango Obbo v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2002)
  • Charles Onyango Obbo and Anor v Attorney General, [2004] UGSC 81
  • Dimanche Sharon v Makerere University (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2004)
  • Saverino Twinobusingye v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 47 of 2011)
  • Henry Tumukunde v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2006)
  • Hub for Investigative Media v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 3 of 2020)
  • Bakaluba Peter Mukasa v Nambooze Betty Bakireke (Election Petition Appeal No. 4 of 2009)
  • P. K. Ssemwogerere v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2002)
  • Attorney General v Major David Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Okello John Livingstone v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 2005)
  • Attorney General v Siluation Abuki, Constitutional Appeal No. 1988 (SC)
  • Kizza Besigye v Yoweri Kaguta Museveni (Presidential Election Petition No. 2 of 2006)
  • Kizito v Attorney General (supra)
  • Excel Assorted Manufacturers Ltd v The Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause No. 40 of 2017)
  • Alcon International Ltd v The New Vision Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd (Civil Application No. 4 of 2010)
  • The Managing Director National Security Fund and 196 others, Civil Appeal 285 of 2016, [2022] UGCA 223 (8th August 2023)
  • Midi Television (Pty) Ltd v Director of Public Prosecutions (Western Cape), [2007] 3 ALL SA 318
  • President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v South African Rugby Football Union and Others, (CCT16/98)
  • Mark Gova Chavunduka & Another v Minister of Home Affairs & Another, Supreme Court Civil Appeal 156 of 1999 (Unreported)
  • Moafika Newspaper: Rule Nisi (Sub-judice matter) (in Rex v. Mokhastso & Ors), CRW/95/02
  • S. v Hartman & Another 1984 1 SA 305 (ZSC)
  • Attorney General v Times Newspaper Ltd, [1973] 2 ALL ER 54
  • Attorney General v Times Newspaper Limited, [1972] 3 ALL ER 136
  • R v Oakes 26, DLR (4th) 200
  • R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd. (1985) 18 DLR (4th Ed) 321
  • St. James's Evening Post case (1742)
  • Attorney General of Tanzania v Rev Christopher Mtikila, (2010) EA 13
  • South Dakota v. South Carolina 192, USA 268, 1940
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.