Wakilii

Asingwire Alex Mukasa v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 44 of 2022)

Constitutional Court · [2025] UGCC 9 · 2025 Petition Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional petition challenging the constitutionality of statutory provisions and practice directions
Decision
Petition dismissed in its entirety with no order as to costs.

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 petitioner challenged Sections 1 and 16 of the Trial on Indictments Act and Guidelines 10(2)-(3) of the 2022 Bail Guidelines as violating the rights to a fair hearing, presumption of innocence and liberty. The Constitutional Court dismissed the petition. The constitutionality of Section 1 had been settled in Barihaihi v Attorney General, and no justification to depart was shown. The Supreme Court had already declared Section 16 unconstitutional in Foundation for Human Rights Initiatives, so the remedy lay in enforcement under Article 50 in the High Court, not fresh interpretation. 'The court' in Article 23(6)(c) means the High Court, so the Bail Guidelines were consistent with the Constitution and did not amend it.

Facts

The petitioner, acting in person, filed a constitutional petition contending that Sections 1 and 16 of the Trial on Indictments Act require committal proceedings for capital offences to be conducted in Magistrates Courts, which lack jurisdiction to grant bail in such offences. He argued this produces automatic remand of suspects for continuous periods exceeding 240 or 480 days, infringing the rights to a fair and speedy hearing, the presumption of innocence and personal liberty. He further contended that Guidelines 10(2) and 10(3) of the Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2022, by confining the grant of bail in offences triable only by the High Court to the High Court, contravened and effectively amended the Constitution. The Attorney General replied that the issues had already been determined by the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court and that the petition was barred by res judicata.

Issues

  1. Whether Section 1 of the Trial on Indictments Act violates Articles 28(1) and 28(3)(a) of the Constitution.
  2. Whether Section 16 of the Trial on Indictments Act is inconsistent with Articles 28(1) and 28(3) of the Constitution.
  3. Whether Guidelines 10(2) and 10(3) of the Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2022 are inconsistent with Articles 2 and 23(6)(b) and (c) of the Constitution.
  4. Whether Guidelines 10(2) and 10(3) of the said Directions have the effect of amending the Constitution.
  5. What remedies are available.

Orders

  • The petition fails and is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Res Judicata — Re-litigation of constitutional questions
A constitutional question that has been conclusively interpreted and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction cannot be re-litigated; the Constitutional Court will not hear and determine the same substantial legal issues more than once.
Constitutional Law — Stare Decisis — Binding effect of Supreme Court decisions
Once the Supreme Court has pronounced on the constitutionality of a statutory provision, the Constitutional Court is bound by that decision and cannot entertain the same issue again.
Constitutional Law — Precedent — Departure from a court's own previous decision
A court will not depart from its own previous decision merely on a party's request; departure must be justified by sufficient and just cause demonstrated by the party seeking it.
Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction — Interpretation versus enforcement of rights
Where a constitutional provision has already been authoritatively interpreted, a litigant complaining of its violation must seek enforcement of rights under Article 50 before the High Court rather than fresh interpretation by the Constitutional Court.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Bail — Article 23(6)(c) — Court competent to grant bail
Under Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution, 'the court' empowered to release a person on bail after 180 days' remand in offences triable only by the High Court is the High Court; Magistrates Courts have no jurisdiction to grant bail in such offences.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Bail Guidelines — Consistency with the Constitution
Guidelines 10(2) and 10(3) of the Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2022, which confine the grant of bail in offences triable only by the High Court to the High Court, are consistent with Article 23(6) and do not have the effect of amending the Constitution.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Committal proceedings — Right to a fair hearing
Committal proceedings conducted in the Magistrates Courts do not infringe an accused person's right to a fair hearing, and the requirement of committal does not by itself violate the presumption of innocence or the constitutional right to apply for bail.

Legislation cited (24)

  • Trial on Indictments Act Cap 23 s.1 (now s.2, Cap 25)
  • Trial on Indictments Act Cap 23 s.16 (now s.17, Cap 25)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.2
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.8A
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.20
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.23(6)(a)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.23(6)(b)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.23(6)(c)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.28(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.28(3)(a)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.31
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.44
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.45
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.50
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.126(2)(b)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.132
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137(3)(a)
  • Magistrates Courts Act s.168
  • Interpretation Act Cap 3
  • Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2022 (Legal Notice 8 of 2022) Guideline 10
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights art.4
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights art.11
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights art.7

Cases cited (21)

  • Foundation for Human Rights Initiatives v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2009)
  • Barihaihi & Anor v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 23 of 2011)
  • Brigadier Henry Tumukunde v Attorney General & Anor (Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2006)
  • Paul K. Semogerere & 2 Ors v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2002)
  • Smith Dakota -v- North Carolina 192 US 268 (1940)
  • Attorney General v Salvatory Abuki [1999] UGSC 7
  • Attorney General v Major General David Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Olum & Anor -v- AG [2002] EA 508
  • Christopher Martin Madrama Izama v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2016)
  • Uganda Law Society v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 18 of 2005)
  • David Tusingwire v Attorney General [2017] UGSC 11
  • Uganda v Onegi Obel (Constitutional Reference No. 24 of 2010)
  • Fr. Narsensio Begumisa & Ors v Eric Tibebaga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
  • Soon Yeon Kong Kim & Anor v Attorney General (Constitutional Reference No. 6 of 2007)
  • Attorney General v Tumushabe (Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2005)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Speke Hotel (1995) Ltd (High Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2008)
  • Hon. Sam Kuteesa & 2 Ors v Attorney General (Constitutional Reference No. 5 of 2011)
  • Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council & Anor [1999] UGSC 23
  • Jude Mbabali v Edward Sekandi [2014] UGCC 15
  • Onyango-Obbo & Anor v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 15 of 1997)
  • Attorney General v David Tinyefuza (Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
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.