Wakilii

Parliarmentary Commission v Mwesigye [2019] UGSC 11

Supreme Court · 2019 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional appeal from a Constitutional Court declaration that a statutory provision is unconstitutional
Decision
Appeal dismissed; Constitutional Court's declaration that section 5 of the Act is unconstitutional upheld

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 Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Constitutional Court's declaration that section 5 of the Parliamentary (Remuneration of Members of Parliament) Act is unconstitutional to the extent of its inconsistency with Article 93. Although Article 85 authorises Parliament to determine its members' emoluments, those emoluments are a charge on the Consolidated Fund, so Articles 85 and 93 must be read together. Any bill, motion or resolution increasing such emoluments must be introduced on behalf of Government, not the Parliamentary Commission. Left on its own, section 5 permits amendment of the Schedule without recourse to Article 93 and is therefore unconstitutional.

Facts

The respondent petitioned the Constitutional Court against the Parliamentary Commission and the Attorney General, alleging that Parliament had on numerous occasions increased the emoluments of its members by resolution under section 5 of the Parliamentary (Remuneration of Members of Parliament) Act. He contended this contravened Article 93 of the Constitution, which requires such action to be originated by a bill or motion on behalf of Government. In particular, a 2001 resolution increasing emoluments was moved by Hon. Isaac Musumba, who, though a Minister, signed it on behalf of the Parliamentary Commission rather than the Executive. The appellant and the Attorney General opposed the petition, arguing that Article 85 empowered Parliament to determine its members' emoluments and that the Executive could not veto such a determination. The Constitutional Court held section 5 unconstitutional to the extent of its inconsistency with Article 93 and made a declaration to that effect, prompting the appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether section 5 of the Parliamentary (Remuneration of Members of Parliament) Act contravenes Article 93 of the Constitution.
  2. Whether the Constitutional Court erred by interpreting Article 93 in isolation from Articles 84, 154 and 155 of the Constitution.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Public Finance — Charge on the Consolidated Fund — Restriction under Article 93
Emoluments of members of Parliament are a charge on the Consolidated Fund, and any bill, motion or resolution that imposes or alters such a charge otherwise than by reduction may only be introduced on behalf of Government, not Parliament or the Parliamentary Commission.
Constitutional Law — Determination of Emoluments — Article 85 read with Article 93
Although Article 85 authorises Parliament to determine the emoluments of its members, that power must be exercised in conformity with Article 93 where the determination results in a charge on the Consolidated Fund; the two provisions must be read together to achieve a harmonious construction of the Constitution.
Statutory Interpretation — Constitutionality — Purpose and Effect Test
In determining the constitutionality of legislation, both its purpose and effect must be considered; where either the purpose or the effect of implementing a provision is inconsistent with the Constitution, that provision shall be declared null and void to the extent of the inconsistency.
Constitutional Interpretation — Rule of Harmony — Constitution Read as an Integral Whole
The whole Constitution must be read together as an integral whole, with no provision destroying another but each sustaining the other; no provision is to be segregated and considered alone, but all provisions bearing on a particular subject must be brought into view and interpreted to effectuate the greater purpose of the instrument.

Legislation cited (11)

  • Parliamentary (Remuneration of Members of Parliament) Act, Cap 259 s.5
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.82
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.84
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.85
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.87A
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.93
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.98(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.153
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.154
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.155
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.156

Cases cited (3)

  • P.K. Ssemwogerere v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2002)
  • Attorney General v Salvatori Abuki (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Foundation for Human Rights Initiative v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2009)
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.