Wakilii

John Ken-Lukyamuzi v Attorney General and Anor (Constitutional Petition No. 19 of 2006)

Constitutional Court · [2007] UGCC 2 · 2007 Petition Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional petition challenging removal from Parliament and the constitutionality of provisions of the Leadership Code Act
Decision
Petition dismissed; the IGG confirmed as the appropriate tribunal under Article 83(1)(e) with power to remove the petitioner from Parliament

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 petitioner, an MP removed from the 7th Parliament after the Inspector General of Government found him in breach of the Leadership Code, challenged his removal and the constitutionality of several Leadership Code Act provisions. The central question was whether the IGG is the 'appropriate tribunal' under Article 83(1)(e). Interpreting the Constitution holistically alongside Article 234, the Constitutional Court held that the IGG is the appropriate tribunal empowered to enforce the Leadership Code and remove an MP, and that its combined investigative, prosecutorial and adjudicative powers do not breach natural justice given statutory safeguards and a right of appeal to the High Court. The petition was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Petition dismissed; the IGG confirmed as the appropriate tribunal under Article 83(1)(e) with power to remove the petitioner from Parliament

Facts

The petitioner was a Member of the 7th Parliament representing Lubaga South Constituency. By a report dated 30 September 2005, the Inspector General of Government found him guilty of breaching the Leadership Code Act (failure to declare his wealth, contrary to s.4(8)) and required him to vacate his seat. He lost his seat on 5 December 2005 when the Speaker of Parliament implemented the IGG's decision. In January 2006, the Electoral Commission barred him from nomination to contest for the 8th Parliament, citing his prior vacation of seat for breach of the Leadership Code. The petitioner contended that the IGG was not the 'appropriate tribunal' contemplated by Article 83(1)(e) of the Constitution and therefore had no power to order his removal from Parliament.

Issues

  1. Whether the removal of the petitioner from Parliament by the Inspector General of Government and the Speaker of Parliament was contrary to Articles 2, 3(4) and 83(1)(e) of the Constitution.
  2. Whether the disqualification of the petitioner by the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission from being nominated to contest as a Member of the 8th Parliament breached Articles 2, 3(4), 62, 80 and 83(1)(e) of the Constitution.
  3. Whether the application of Sections 5(2)(b), 5(2)(c), 12(2), 14(3)(c), 14(3)(d), 35(b) and 35(d) of the Leadership Code Act to Members of Parliament is inconsistent with Articles 2 and 83(1)(e) of the Constitution.
  4. Whether Section 34(2)(b) of the Leadership Code Act contravenes Articles 20(2) and 42 of the Constitution.
  5. What remedies are available to the petitioner.

Orders

  • Petition dismissed.
  • Costs of the petition awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Interpretation — Holistic Approach
In interpreting the Constitution a holistic approach must be taken, reading the Constitution as a whole together with relevant statutes such as the Leadership Code Act and the Inspectorate of Government Act.
Leadership Code — Appropriate Tribunal under Article 83(1)(e)
The Inspectorate of Government is the 'appropriate tribunal' referred to in Article 83(1)(e) of the Constitution, being vested by Article 234 with enforcement of the Leadership Code, and it remains the enforcement authority until Parliament by law prescribes another authority.
Natural Justice — Combined Investigative, Prosecutorial and Adjudicative Powers
The IGG's powers to investigate, prosecute and adjudicate do not offend the rules of natural justice because they are not necessarily exercised simultaneously and statutory safeguards exist, including the duty to observe natural justice under section 26 of the Leadership Code Act and a right of appeal to the High Court under section 33.
Meaning of 'Tribunal'
The word 'tribunal' is wide enough to apply to an individual person vested with quasi-judicial power and not only to a body of persons.
Remedies — Failure to Exhaust Statutory Right of Appeal
A person aggrieved by a decision of the IGG who has a statutory right of appeal to the High Court but declines to exercise it has no other available remedy against that decision.

Legislation cited (25)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

John Ken-Lukyamuzi v Attorney General and Anor (Constitutional Petition No. 19 of 2006) [2007] UGCC 2 (26 March 2007)
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.