Lukyamuzi v Attorney General, Electoral Commission [2010] UGSC 2

Supreme Court · 2010 Appeal Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Constitutional appeal from the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Constitutional Court.

Decision

Appeal allowed; appellant's removal from Parliament and his disqualification from nomination declared null and void; emoluments ordered to be computed by the Clerk to Parliament and paid.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this 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 Supreme Court held that the Inspector General of Government is not the 'appropriate tribunal' under Article 83(1)(e) of the Constitution: power to enforce the Leadership Code does not, without more, make the IGG an adjudicatory body, and combining investigator, prosecutor and judge in one office offends natural justice and the right to a fair hearing. The tribunal envisaged is the Leadership Code Tribunal under Article 235A, not yet established. The appellant's removal from Parliament and his disqualification from nomination were therefore null and void. However, the IGG, Speaker and Electoral Commission, having honestly implemented a valid law, did not breach Articles 2 and 3(4). The appeal substantially succeeded.

Facts

The appellant was elected member of Parliament for Lubaga South in February 2001 for a five-year term. The Inspector General of Government found that he had breached the Leadership Code Act, 2002, by failing without reasonable cause to declare his income, assets and liabilities, the only penalty for which is dismissal or vacation of office. The IGG reported this to the Speaker of Parliament and required him to implement her decision; the Speaker removed the appellant from his seat with effect from 5 December 2005. The Clerk to Parliament notified the Electoral Commission of the vacancy, and the Commission's Chairperson, relying on the five-year disqualification under the Act, barred the appellant from being nominated in the February 2006 parliamentary elections. The appellant petitioned the Constitutional Court, contending his removal and disqualification violated the Constitution. The petition was dismissed, and he appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

Whether the Inspector General of Government is the 'appropriate tribunal' contemplated by Article 83(1)(e) of the Constitution for finding a member of Parliament guilty of violating the Leadership Code of Conduct.
Whether the IGG, the Speaker of Parliament and the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission breached Articles 2 and 3(4) of the Constitution by acting on the IGG's report.
Whether the appellant's removal from Parliament and his disqualification from nomination in the February 2006 elections were unconstitutional.

Orders

Appeal substantially succeeds; the judgment and orders of the Constitutional Court are set aside.
The removal of the appellant from his seat as member of Parliament for Lubaga South is declared null and void for being contrary to Articles 2 and 83(1)(e) of the Constitution.
The disqualification of the appellant from being nominated as a candidate in the parliamentary elections held in February 2006 is declared null and void for being contrary to Articles 2 and 83(1)(e) of the Constitution.
The appellant is to be paid all the emoluments he would have earned as a member of Parliament from the date of his removal until the expiry of his tenure in the 7th Parliament; the Clerk to Parliament is to compute the amount, which is to be lodged in the registry and becomes the decree of the Court.
No order is made regarding compensation for political embarrassment and inconvenience.
Half of the costs of the appeal and of the Constitutional Court proceedings are awarded to the appellant, with a certificate for two counsel.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Vacation of Parliamentary Seat — Meaning of 'Appropriate Tribunal' under Article 83(1)(e)

The Inspector General of Government is not the 'appropriate tribunal' contemplated by Article 83(1)(e) of the Constitution; statutory power to enforce the Leadership Code of Conduct does not, without express conferral of judicial functions, transform the enforcing authority into a court or tribunal capable of finding a member of Parliament guilty so as to vacate the seat.

Statutory Interpretation — Meaning of 'Tribunal' — Requirement of an Adjudicatory Body

A 'tribunal' is a court or other adjudicatory body before which there is an accuser and an accused, which conducts a hearing and reaches a decision binding on the parties; an authority that merely investigates, prosecutes and enforces a law, without written judicial procedure conferring such adjudicatory character, does not qualify.

Administrative Law — Natural Justice — Combination of Investigator, Prosecutor and Judge (nemo judex in causa sua)

An institution that combines the functions of investigation, prosecution and adjudication in respect of the same cause offends the principle nemo judex in causa sua and the right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal guaranteed by Articles 28(1) and 44(c) of the Constitution; a court or tribunal must be independent of the agencies that investigate or prosecute the cases before it.

Constitutional Law — Defence of the Constitution under Article 3(4) — Honest Implementation of a Valid Law

Honest implementation by a person or authority of a law validly enacted by Parliament does not amount to a failure to defend the Constitution under Article 3(4); a law remains binding until declared null and void by a competent court, and refusing to implement lawful orders in the name of defending the Constitution would undermine the rule of law.

Electoral Law — Disqualification from Nomination — Effect of a Void Removal under the Leadership Code

Where a member of Parliament's removal under the Leadership Code is null and void for want of determination by the appropriate tribunal under Article 83(1)(e), the consequential disqualification from nomination as a candidate, founded on that removal, is likewise null and void.

Legislation cited (41)

Constitution of Uganda art.2
Constitution of Uganda art.3(4)
Constitution of Uganda art.28(1)
Constitution of Uganda art.44(c)
Constitution of Uganda art.62
Constitution of Uganda art.77(3)
Constitution of Uganda art.80
Constitution of Uganda art.81(2)
Constitution of Uganda art.83(1)(e)
Constitution of Uganda art.96
Constitution of Uganda art.132(4)
Constitution of Uganda art.225
Constitution of Uganda art.230
Constitution of Uganda art.233(1)
Constitution of Uganda art.234
Constitution of Uganda art.235
Constitution of Uganda art.235A
Constitution of Uganda art.289
Leadership Code Act 2002 s.2(2)
Leadership Code Act 2002 s.4(1)(b)
Leadership Code Act 2002 s.4(8)
Leadership Code Act 2002 s.19(1)
Leadership Code Act 2002 s.20(1)
Leadership Code Act 2002 s.20(3)
Leadership Code Act 2002 s.21
Leadership Code Act 2002 s.23
Leadership Code Act 2002 s.25
Leadership Code Act 2002 s.26
Leadership Code Act 2002 s.30
Leadership Code Act 2002 s.34(2)(b)
Leadership Code Act 2002 s.35
Inspectorate of Government Act s.8(1)(d)
Inspectorate of Government Act s.13
Inspectorate of Government Act s.14
Inspectorate of Government Act s.25(3)
Constitution (Consequential Provisions) Act 1995 s.1(2)
Civil Procedure Act s.25
Civil Procedure Act s.39
Commissions of Inquiry Act s.9
Supreme Court Rules 1996 r.82(1)
Supreme Court Rules 1996 r.98(b)

Cases cited (2)

Fox Odoi-Oywelowo and James Akampumuza v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 8 of 2003)
Uganda Association of Women Lawyers and Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2003)

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.