Kalali v Attorney General & Another (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 35 OF 2018)
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.
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 Ugandan citizens aged eighteen years and above who are in prison or living in the diaspora possess the constitutional right to vote under article 59 of the Constitution. The Electoral Commission's exclusion of these citizens from voter registration violates their fundamental rights under articles 1, 21 and 59, and contravenes Uganda's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter on Human and People's Rights. The absence of enabling legislation does not excuse the failure to implement article 59(3), which mandates the state to take all necessary steps to ensure all qualified citizens register and vote.
Outcome
Application granted with declarations and directions to the Electoral Commission
Facts
The applicant, a lawyer, brought an application on behalf of Ugandan prisoners aged 18 years and above and Ugandans living in the diaspora. Two prisoners from Iganga prison swore affidavits that they had never been registered as voters or issued national identity cards, and no inmates participated in the 2016 presidential and parliamentary elections. Since 1995, the Electoral Commission has conducted five general elections without registering or facilitating voting for prisoners or diaspora Ugandans. The Electoral Commission opposed the application, arguing that the current legal framework does not encompass the intricacies of voting while incarcerated or in the diaspora, and that its duty must be exercised in accordance with existing law. The applicant argued that all adult Ugandans have a constitutional right to vote without limitation or exception.
Issues
- Whether Ugandans in prison and in the diaspora have a right to vote.
- Whether the right to vote of prisoners and Ugandans in the diaspora has been infringed.
- Whether the acts of the Respondents are illegal.
- What remedies are available to the parties.
Orders
- Declared that Ugandans of eighteen years and above who are in prison or the diaspora have the right to vote under article 59 of the Constitution.
- Declared that the Electoral Commission's conduct of depriving them of this right is illegal as it infringes their rights in violation of articles 1, 59 and 21 of the Constitution.
- Directed the Electoral Commission to comply with its obligation under article 59(3) to take all necessary steps to ensure that as citizens, prisoners and Ugandans in the diaspora register and exercise their right to vote.
- No order as to costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (24)
- Constitution of Uganda article 1
- Constitution of Uganda article 1(1)
- Constitution of Uganda article 1(4)
- Constitution of Uganda article 20
- Constitution of Uganda article 21
- Constitution of Uganda article 25
- Constitution of Uganda article 41
- Constitution of Uganda article 43
- Constitution of Uganda article 44
- Constitution of Uganda article 50(2)
- Constitution of Uganda article 59
- Constitution of Uganda article 59(1)
- Constitution of Uganda article 59(2)
- Constitution of Uganda article 59(3)
- Constitution of Uganda article 59(4)
- Electoral Commission Act s.18
- Electoral Commission Act s.19
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Judicature Act s.33
- Prisons Act 2006
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights article 2
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights article 25
- African Charter on Human and People's Rights article 2
- African Charter on Human and People's Rights article 13(1)
Cases cited (4)
- August v Electoral Commission (1999) ZACC 3
- Haig v Canada 105 DLR (4th) 577
- Sauvé v Canada (Attorney General) 7 OR (3rd) 481
- Minister of Home Affairs v National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Re-integration of Offenders (NICRO) & others
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.
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.