Wakilii

Lumu Richard Kizito and Others v Mao Norbert and Others (Constitutional Petition 26 of 2022)

Constitutional Court · [2026] UGCC 2 · 2026 Petition Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional petition under Article 137 challenging a political cooperation agreement and a ministerial appointment
Decision
Petition dismissed unanimously for lack of merit; each party to bear its own costs.

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 Constitutional Court unanimously dismissed the petition. The procedure for, and contents of, the DP-NRM cooperation agreement raise no question for constitutional interpretation and belong to the parties' internal mechanisms or the ordinary courts, so those issues were struck out. On the merits, neither the Constitution nor the Political Parties and Organisations Act prohibits parties from forming alliances or coalitions; such cooperation is consistent with democratic governance. Appointing a member of another party as a Cabinet Minister, with the duties of collective responsibility and confidentiality, does not breach the Constitution, since Article 113 imposes no party-membership restriction and joining Cabinet is not 'crossing the floor'.

Facts

The petitioners, members of the Democratic Party (DP), challenged a cooperation agreement allegedly signed on 20 July 2022 between the DP (the 3rd respondent), represented by its President Mao Norbert (the 1st respondent) in the presence of the Secretary General (the 2nd respondent), and the National Resistance Movement (NRM), which is not a party to the petition. The agreement provided, among other things, that the DP would support the NRM government on parliamentary motions and matters of confidence, that the 1st respondent would be appointed Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, and that by 2026 there would be no DP structures in central Uganda. Following the agreement, the 1st respondent was appointed Minister. The petitioners alleged the agreement was signed without the authority or consent of the DP's organs and that it, the ministerial appointment, and the binding of DP ministers by Cabinet rules and confidentiality, undermined multiparty democracy. The respondents admitted a cooperation agreement was executed but disputed the authenticity of the version relied on and contended no constitutional question arose.

Issues

  1. Whether the petition discloses or raises any questions for constitutional interpretation under Article 137 of the Constitution.
  2. Whether the act of the Democratic Party, represented by the 1st and 2nd respondents, signing a cooperation agreement with the NRM undermines the spirit, letter and principles of democratic governance and contravenes Articles 1(4), 8A, 29(1)(a),(b),(d) & (e), 38, 71(1)(c) and 117 of the Constitution.
  3. Whether appointing the 1st respondent as Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs while serving as President of the Democratic Party undermines democratic governance and contravenes the Constitution.
  4. Whether the agreement that Ministers appointed from the DP shall be bound by the Cabinet Rules contravenes the Constitution.
  5. Whether the agreement that Ministers appointed from the DP will be bound by the principle of Cabinet confidentiality contravenes the Constitution.

Orders

  • The act of the 3rd respondent signing the cooperation agreement with the NRM does not undermine the principles of democratic governance and is not inconsistent with Articles 1(4), 8A, 29(1)(a),(b),(d) & (e), 38, 71(1)(c) and 117 of the Constitution.
  • The act of appointing the 1st respondent as Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs while serving as President of the 3rd respondent does not undermine democratic governance and is not inconsistent with the Constitution.
  • The agreement that Ministers appointed from the DP shall be bound by the Cabinet Rules does not undermine democratic governance and is not inconsistent with the Constitution.
  • The agreement that Ministers appointed from the DP will be bound by the principle of Cabinet confidentiality does not undermine democratic governance and is not inconsistent with the Constitution.
  • The petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs as the matter is of public interest.

Key headnotes

Jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court — Article 137 — Question for constitutional interpretation required
The Constitutional Court's original jurisdiction under Article 137 arises only where the determination of the petition depends on the interpretation or construction of a provision of the Constitution; it is not enough merely to allege that a constitutional provision has been violated, and not every alleged violation of the Constitution belongs before the Constitutional Court.
Political parties — Alliances and coalitions — Consistency with democratic governance
Neither the Constitution nor the Political Parties and Organisations Act prohibits political parties from entering into alliances, coalitions or cooperation agreements; such arrangements are consistent with democratic governance, which thrives on negotiation and compromise, and restrictions typically target only identity-based exclusivity or external interference rather than cooperation itself.
Cabinet appointments — Appointment of a member of another party — No party-membership restriction
Article 113 of the Constitution permits the President, with Parliament's approval, to appoint Ministers from Members of Parliament or persons qualified to be Members of Parliament, and imposes no requirement that a Minister belong to the ruling party; a member of a party other than the ruling party may therefore serve in Cabinet without contravening the Constitution.
Cabinet appointments — Distinction between joining Cabinet and 'crossing the floor'
Appointment to Cabinet is not equivalent to 'crossing the floor' under Article 83; a Member of Parliament is elected by the electorate and accountable to it, whereas a Minister is appointed by and accountable to the President, and a member of another party invited to serve in Cabinet does not thereby formally defect from their party.
Ministerial responsibility and confidentiality — Effect of cooperation agreement
The constitutional duties of collective responsibility and Cabinet confidentiality under Article 117 do not undermine democratic governance when assumed by a Minister drawn from a party that has entered a cooperation agreement; once appointed under the Constitution, a Minister's responsibilities take precedence over party constitutions, which are subordinate to the supreme law under Article 2.
Fair hearing — A non-party cannot be condemned unheard
A party to an agreement that is not joined to a constitutional petition cannot be condemned for having signed an agreement said to be inconsistent with the Constitution without being given a right to be heard, and this defect undermines a petition that seeks such a condemnation.

Legislation cited (22)

  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.1(4)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.2
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.8A
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.29(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.38
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.50
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.69
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.71
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.72
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.82A
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.83
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.90
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.113
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.115
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.117
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137
  • Political Parties and Organisations Act 2005 s.5
  • Political Parties and Organisations Act 2005 s.6(3)
  • Political Parties and Organisations Act 2005 s.18
  • Evidence Act s.101
  • Evidence Act s.102
  • Access to Information Act

Cases cited (24)

  • David Tusingwire v Attorney General [2017] UGCC 11
  • Rtd. Dr. Col. Kiiza Besigye v Y. K. Museveni (Presidential Election Petition No. 2 of 2006)
  • Attorney General v Salvatori Abuki (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1988)
  • P. K. Ssemwogerere and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2002)
  • Attorney General of Tanzania v Rev Christopher Mtikila (2010) EA 13
  • Okello Okello John Livingstone and 6 others v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 2005)
  • Attorney General v Major David Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Kizito v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 17 of 2021)
  • Mustapha v Muhammed and another [1989] LRC (Const.) 16
  • Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council and Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Uganda Association of Women Lawyers and 5 others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2003)
  • Retired Justice Karokora v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 45 of 2012)
  • Fox Odoi Ogwelowo v National Resistance Movement and another (Constitutional Petition No. 37 of 2015)
  • Hasan Ali Joho and Another v Suleiman Shahbal and 2 Others (2013) EKR (Court of Appeal Kenya)
  • Center for Health, Human Rights and Development (CEHURD) and 3 others v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2013)
  • Rwanyarare & Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 5 of 1999)
  • Kenneth Adrapi v Hon. Dritto Martin, Attorney General and Electoral Commission (Constitutional Petition No. 9 of 2013)
  • Foundation for Human Rights Initiative v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 53 of 2011)
  • Charles Kabagambe v Uganda Electricity Board (Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 1999)
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikuubo and 4 others v Attorney General and 4 others (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2015)
  • Dr. Kiiza Besigye v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 13 of 2009)
  • Uganda Journalist Safety Committee v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 1997)
  • Dr. Rwanyarare and another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 11 of 1997)
  • Pandey and another v State of West Bengal [1988] LRC (Const.) 241
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.