Businge Police Fred v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Petition No. 24 of 2012)

Observed later treatment

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

Holding

The Constitutional Court held that a petition under Article 137 may seek both interpretation and redress, giving the Constitutional Court and the High Court concurrent jurisdiction over the vacation of a sitting MP's seat. Embezzlement and uttering false documents are crimes involving dishonesty and moral turpitude under Article 80(2)(f); read with Article 83(1)(b), a serving member convicted of such crimes must vacate his seat upon conviction. The second respondent's seat fell vacant on his conviction of 3 April 2012, and his continued drawing of emoluments contravened Article 85(1) as an illegality the court could not sanction. The petition was allowed.

Outcome

Petition allowed; second respondent's parliamentary seat declared vacant and ordered refunded of emoluments drawn after conviction

Facts

The petitioner, a registered voter and anti-corruption activist in Bukonzo East Constituency, Kasese District, challenged the continued membership of the second respondent, the elected Member of Parliament for that constituency. On 3 April 2012 the second respondent was convicted in the Anti-Corruption Division of the High Court, on his own plea of guilty, of two counts of uttering false documents contrary to sections 347 and 351 of the Penal Code Act and of embezzlement of public funds contrary to section 19 of the Anti-Corruption Act, and was sentenced to fines or, in default, imprisonment. Despite the conviction the second respondent remained in Parliament, continued participating in parliamentary business as a Member, and continued drawing salaries, allowances and other emoluments. The petitioner and other voters asked the second respondent, the Speaker, and the Attorney General to give effect to the Constitution, but no action was taken, prompting the petition.

Issues

1. Whether the petition raises any question requiring constitutional interpretation.
2. Whether embezzlement contrary to section 19 of the Anti-Corruption Act and uttering false documents contrary to sections 347 and 351 of the Penal Code Act are crimes involving dishonesty or moral turpitude within the meaning of Article 80(2)(f) of the Constitution.
3. Whether a conviction occurring while a person is already a Member of Parliament is contemplated under Article 80(2)(f) read with Article 83(1)(b) as a basis for vacation of that Member's seat.
4. Whether the second respondent's continued drawing of salaries, allowances and emoluments after conviction is inconsistent with or in contravention of Article 85(1) of the Constitution.

Orders

• The petition is allowed.
• Declaration that the seat of Member of Parliament for Bukonzo County East Constituency fell vacant when the second respondent was convicted on 3 April 2012 of offences involving dishonesty and moral turpitude.
• Declaration that from 3 April 2012 the second respondent ought to have ceased to receive any salary, allowances and other emoluments accorded to a Member of Parliament.
• The second respondent shall vacate his seat in Parliament immediately; his seat is declared vacated.
• The second respondent shall refund to the Consolidated Fund all monies received illegally as remuneration after 3 April 2012.
• The second respondent shall bear the costs of the petition, awarded to the petitioner.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (11)

• Constitution of Uganda Article 137
• Constitution of Uganda Article 80(2)(f)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 83(1)(b)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 85(1)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 86
• Constitution of Uganda Article 79
• Constitution of Uganda Article 8A
• Constitution of Uganda National Objective and Directive Principle XXVI
• Penal Code Act s.351
• Penal Code Act s.347
• Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.19

Cases cited (11)

• Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd v East African Development Bank [1990-1994] EA 117
• Uganda Breweries Ltd v Uganda Railways Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2001)
• Captain Harry Fandy vs. Caspair Air Charter
• Baku Raphael Obudra and Obiga Kania v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2003)
• Major General Tinyefuza v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
• Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council and Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
• Saleh M. W. Kamba v Attorney General and 4 Others (Constitutional Petition No. 16 of 2013)
• National Resistance Movement v Attorney General and 4 Others (Constitutional Petition No. 21 of 2013)
• P. K. Ssemwogerere and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2002)
• Attorney General of Tanzania v Christopher Mtikila [2010] EA 13
• Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Gen. David Sejusa v Uganda (HCT-00-CR-CM 15 of 2016)

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.