Faridah Nakazibwe v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition 15 of 2019)

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.

Holding

The Constitutional Court held that the Media Council Disciplinary Committee, established under section 30 of the Press and Journalists Act, is an administrative body or tribunal within Article 42 of the Constitution and not a subordinate court under Article 129(1)(d). Its membership, procedure and remedies support the regulatory functions of the Media Council rather than those of a court. The Court further held that classification of courts as superior or subordinate turns on their mode of establishment, not their place in the appellate hierarchy, so a right of appeal to the High Court does not make a body a subordinate court. As the central question was answered against the Petitioner, the remaining issues collapsed as moot. The Petition was dismissed with each party bearing its own costs.

Outcome

Petition dismissed; the Media Council Disciplinary Committee declared an administrative body/tribunal, not a subordinate court

Facts

The Petitioner, a media personality, was aggrieved by publications about her and lodged a complaint against Red Pepper Publications Ltd before the Media Council Disciplinary Committee, which found in her favour in Media Disciplinary Case No. 01 of 2017. Red Pepper subsequently sought judicial review of the Committee's decision in the High Court, with the Attorney General joined as Respondent and counsel for the Committee. The Petitioner contended that the Disciplinary Committee, established under section 30 of the Press and Journalists Act, is a subordinate court and therefore cannot be the subject of judicial review under the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules; that those Rules had never been tabled before Parliament as required; and that subordinate courts should instruct independent counsel rather than rely on the Attorney General. The Respondent maintained that the Committee is an administrative body making quasi-judicial decisions, from which an appeal lies to the High Court, and that the Petition disclosed no question of constitutional interpretation.

Issues

1. Whether the Petition discloses a cause of action.
2. Whether the Media Council Disciplinary Committee is a subordinate court under Articles 129(1)(d), 129(3), 139(2), 257(1)(c) and (p) or an administrative body under Article 42 of the Constitution.
3. Whether the Chief Justice or the Rules Committee, in enacting S.I. No. 11 of 2009 and S.I. No. 32 of 2019 subjecting the Media Council Disciplinary Committee to judicial review, violated the Constitution.
4. Whether the only remedy against decisions of the Media Council Disciplinary Committee is an appeal to the High Court under Article 139(2).
5. Whether the Office of the Chief Justice should pass a statutory instrument listing all subordinate courts under Article 133(1).
6. Whether subordinate courts are entitled to independent counsel other than the Attorney General under Articles 119(3) and 119(4)(d).
7. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

• Petition dismissed.
• Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (27)

• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 137
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 129(1)(d)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 129(3)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 139(2)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 133(1)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 42
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 257(1)(cc)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 257(1)(p)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 119(3)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 119(4)(d)
• Judicature Act Cap.73 s.41
• Judicature Act Cap.73 s.42
• Judicature Act Cap.73 s.41(5)
• Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules S.I. No. 11 of 2009
• Judicature (Judicial Review) (Amendment) Rules 2019 S.I. No. 32 of 2019
• Press and Journalists Act Cap 105 s.8
• Press and Journalists Act Cap 105 s.9
• Press and Journalists Act Cap 105 s.10
• Press and Journalists Act Cap 105 s.30
• Press and Journalists Act Cap 105 s.31
• Press and Journalists Act Cap 105 s.32
• Press and Journalists Act Cap 105 s.33
• Press and Journalists Act Cap 105 s.34
• Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules 2005 r.3
• Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act No. 8 of 2006 s.16(1)
• Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act No. 8 of 2006 s.10(2)
• Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust Act Cap 95 s.15

Cases cited (9)

• Krispus Ayena Odongo V AG 2020 UGCC
• [2019] UGSC 69
• Moses Mwandha V AG 2019 UGCC
• Ismail Serugo v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
• Eng Edward Turyomugendo & 2 Ors v Attorney General & 4 Ors (Constitutional Petition No. 25 of 2009)
• Mbabali Jude v Edward Sekandi (Constitutional Petition No. 28 of 2012)
• Male Mabirizi v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 49 of 2017)
• Attorney General v Joseph Tumushabe (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2005)
• Asaph Ruhinda Ntengye & Anor v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 333 of 2016)

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