Wakilii

Dr. J. W. Rwanyarare and Others v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application 85 of 1993)

High Court · [1993] UGHC 99 · 1993 Matter Referred to Constitutional Court AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for protection of fundamental rights under Article 22(1) of the Constitution challenging the constitutionality of Constituent Assembly Election Rules
Decision
Matter referred to Constitutional Court for determination of constitutional questions

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

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.

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 High Court held that the application raised substantial and important questions of law concerning fundamental rights and freedoms under Articles 8(2)(b), 17(1), 18(1) and 20(1) of the Constitution. The court referred the question of whether the Constituent Assembly Election Rules 11(1), 11(2), 12(1), 12(10), 13, 29 and 36 are consistent with these constitutional provisions to the Constitutional Court for authoritative determination.

Outcome

Matter referred to Constitutional Court for determination of constitutional questions

Facts

The applicants, members of the Uganda Peoples Congress political party, sought protection of their fundamental rights. They challenged the constitutionality of Constituent Assembly Election Rules which they alleged prevented them from participating in forthcoming Constituent Assembly elections on a distinct UPC ticket. The rules prohibited candidates from addressing public meetings or rallies for soliciting votes except at candidates' meetings organised by presiding officers, and prohibited candidates from disclosing political party affiliation at such meetings. The applicants alleged that these rules contravened their constitutional rights to freedom from discrimination, freedom of expression, and freedom of assembly and association. They submitted evidence of police dispersal of several peaceful political meetings and a government press release indicating NRM's position that political party activities would remain suspended during the constitution-making process. The Attorney General's counsel argued the rules applied equally to all and were intended for orderly conduct of elections, but requested referral to the Constitutional Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the Constituent Assembly Election Rules 11(1), 11(2), 12(1), 12(10), 13, 29 and 36 contravene Articles 8(2)(b), 17(1), 18(1) and 20(1) of the Constitution.
  2. Whether the matter raises a substantial question of law of sufficient importance to warrant reference to a Constitutional Court under Article 87 of the Constitution.

Orders

  • Matter referred to the Constitutional Court.
  • Question referred: Whether Rules 11(1), 11(2), 12(1), 12(10), 13, 29 and 36 of the Constituent Assembly Election Rules made under Statute No. 6 of 1993 are consistent with Articles 8, 17, 18 and 20 of the Constitution of Uganda.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Court — Reference Procedure — Test for Referral
Where a question as to the interpretation of the Constitution arises in proceedings and the court is of the opinion that the question involves a substantial question of law, the court may and shall if any party requests refer the question to the High Court constituted as a Constitutional Court of not less than three judges, provided the court is of the opinion that the question is sufficiently important to the proceedings to require a reference.
Constitutional Court — Reference — Evidence Must be on Record Before Referral
Before making a reference to a Constitutional Court, the trial court must frame the issues which have arisen for interpretation and must also record evidence which is necessary to resolve those issues. The Constitutional Court is only a court of interpretation and is required after reaching a decision on interpretation to refer the matter back to the trial court for that court to continue with the trial and reach a decision in accordance with the interpretation given.
Bill of Rights — Fundamental Rights — Substantial and Important Questions
Every question touching on the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined and protected in Articles 8 to 20 of the Constitution, especially where such rights and freedoms are alleged to be endangered by ordinary legislation, constitutes a substantial and important question of law. No infraction that may affect the fundamental rights provisions may be treated as unimportant or a less substantial matter.
Bill of Rights — Purpose — Protection Against Governmental Encroachment
The purpose of a bill of rights is to secure certain rights and freedoms regarded as fundamental to a nation's people which cannot be freely transgressed by those in authority, to ensure that all people receive the protection of the law, and to enable participation in matters of individual or national interest on a level playing field. The bill of rights is designed to preserve the ideals of liberty, equality and security against the assaults of opportunism and to place certain subjects beyond the reach of majorities and officials.
Election Rules — Restrictions on Campaigning — Constitutional Scrutiny
Election rules which prohibit candidates from holding public meetings to solicit votes except at official candidates' meetings, and which prohibit disclosure of political party affiliation at such meetings, raise substantial constitutional questions regarding their consistency with constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association, and freedom from discrimination on grounds of political opinion.

Legislation cited (19)

Cases cited (7)

  • Masaba v Republic (1967) E.A. 488
  • Attorney General v Milton Obote Foundation & Another (Court of Appeal No. 7 of 1992)
  • Shah v Attorney General (1970) 7 E.A. 523
  • Valerian Assa Ovonji v Attorney General (Constitutional Case No. 26 of 1981)
  • Thornhill v Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940)
  • Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organisation v Philippine Blooming Mills Co. Inc., 51 SCRA 200
  • Magan v Enrile, 139 SCRA 389

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Dr. J. W. Rwanyarare and Others v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application 85 of 1993) [1993] UGHC 99 (14 December 1993)
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.