Wakilii

Dr. James W. Rwanyarare and Others v Attorney General (Misc. Application No. 85 of 1993 - RULING 3)

High Court · [1993] UGHC 100 · 1993 Matter Referred to Constitutional Court AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and rule 3(1) of the Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 1992, seeking protection of fundamental rights allegedly threatened by Constituent Assembly Election Rules
Decision
Matter referred to Constitutional Court for interpretation 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 referred a constitutional question to a Constitutional Court. The court held that the challenge to Constituent Assembly Election Rules raised substantial and important questions regarding fundamental rights to freedom of expression, assembly, association and non-discrimination under the Constitution. The applicants, members of Uganda Peoples Congress, alleged that the impugned election rules prevented them from campaigning on a distinct UPC ticket and violated their constitutional rights. The court determined that matters affecting Chapter 3 constitutional rights should be authoritatively determined by a Constitutional Court.

Outcome

Matter referred to Constitutional Court for interpretation of constitutional questions

Facts

The applicants, Dr. James W. Rwanyarare, Haji Badru K. Wegulo and Macarius Bonse Asubo, were members of the Uganda Peoples Congress political party. They applied to the High Court seeking protection of their fundamental rights under Articles 8(2)(b), 17(1), 18(1) and 20(1) of the Constitution, alleging that Rules 11(1), 11(2), 12(1), 12(10), 13, 29 and 36 of the Constituent Assembly Election Rules contravened those rights. The applicants wished to participate in forthcoming Constituent Assembly elections on a distinct UPC ticket. The impugned rules prohibited candidates from disclosing political party affiliation or holding public meetings or rallies to solicit votes except at official candidates meetings organised by presiding officers. The applicants alleged that these rules discriminated against them based on political opinion, restricted their freedom of expression and assembly, and favoured those with non-partisan political opinions. They cited incidents where police had forcibly dispersed their peaceful meetings. The Attorney General opposed the application on the merits but applied for the matter to be referred to a Constitutional Court for determination. The application was supported by affidavits from the applicants detailing their allegations, including a press release from the National Political Commissar dated 18 June 1992 stating that political party activities would remain suspended during the constitution-making process.

Issues

  1. Whether a Constitutional question involving substantial and important matters of law had arisen requiring reference to a Constitutional Court.
  2. Whether the application for reference to a Constitutional Court was properly made.
  3. Whether there was sufficient evidence before the court to require reference to a Constitutional Court.
  4. Whether Rules 11(1), 11(2), 12(1), 12(10), 13, 29 and 36 of the Constituent Assembly Election Rules are inconsistent with Articles 8(2)(b), 17(1), 18(1) and 20(1) of the Constitution.

Orders

  • Question referred to the Constitutional Court: 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, The Constituent Assembly Statute, are consistent with Articles 8, 17, 18 and 20 of the Constitution of Uganda.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Interpretation — Reference to Constitutional Court — Test for Reference
Where a question as to the interpretation of the Constitution arises in any proceedings, the trial court may and shall if any party requests refer the question to the High Court sitting as a Constitutional Court, provided the question involves a substantial question of law and is of sufficient importance to the proceedings to require a reference.
Constitutional Interpretation — Duty of Trial Court — Evidence Necessary for Reference
Where a question of constitutional interpretation arises, the trial court must not only frame the issues which have arisen for interpretation but must also record evidence which is necessary to resolve those issues before making a reference to a Constitutional Court.
Fundamental Rights and Freedoms — Bill of Rights — Purpose and Protection
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 an equally level playing field.
Fundamental Rights — Constitutional Guarantees — Infraction as Substantial Question
No infraction that may affect the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in Chapter 3 of the Constitution may be treated as unimportant or a less substantial matter, as such matters may have important consequences for human rights jurisprudence and should be dealt with authoritatively at every appropriate moment.
Election Rules — Constituent Assembly Elections — Challenge on Constitutional Grounds
Where election rules are alleged to prohibit candidates from disclosing political party affiliation and from addressing public meetings or rallies for soliciting votes except at official candidates meetings, and such restrictions are challenged as violations of constitutional rights to freedom of expression, assembly, association and non-discrimination, the matter raises substantial and important constitutional questions requiring authoritative determination by a Constitutional Court.

Legislation cited (16)

Cases cited (7)

  • Masaba v Republic [1967] EA 488
  • Attorney General v Milton Obote Foundation and Another (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1992)
  • Shah v Attorney General [1970] EA 543
  • Valerian Assa Ovonji v Attorney General (Constitutional Case No. 26 of 1981)
  • Thornhill v Alabama 310 US 88 (1940)
  • Phillipine Blooming Mills Employees Organisation vs Phillipine Blooming Mills Co. Inc. 51 SCRA 200
  • Magan vs. Enrile 139 SCRA 589

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Dr. James W. Rwanyarare and Others v Attorney General (Misc. Application No. 85 of 1993 - RULING 3) [1993] UGHC 100 (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.