Okori v Attorney General and Ors (Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 2020)

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 petition, challenging closed party primaries and the nomination of party-fronted candidates, raised no question requiring interpretation of the Constitution. Political organisations are constituted of voluntary members and regulated by their own constitutions under Article 71, while persons who do not subscribe to any party remain free to stand or vote as individuals. The petitioner's claim that he was denied a right to vote because parties excluded him from their internal elections had no legal basis. The Court accordingly held it lacked jurisdiction under Article 137 and struck out the petition with costs, adding that it would otherwise have dismissed it as frivolous and vexatious.

Outcome

Petition struck out for lack of jurisdiction; would otherwise have been dismissed as frivolous and vexatious

Facts

The petitioner, acting in person, complained that in elections the Electoral Commission presented candidates on the ballot who had been fronted by political parties through closed-door primaries, and who were unknown or undesirable to him, leaving him to participate only in the presidential poll. He contended that closed primaries denied him useful information about parties' and candidates' ideologies, restricting his rights to vote, to access information and to free expression of the electors' will. He challenged the parties' practice of selecting candidates internally and Parliament's authority to make laws on sovereignty and natural resources without citizen ratification. The petition sought 22 declarations and 11 orders. The respondents included the Attorney General, the Electoral Commission, five political parties and Parliament.

Issues

1. Whether the petition raised a question requiring interpretation of the Constitution so as to vest the Constitutional Court with jurisdiction under Article 137.
2. Whether the Electoral Commission's nomination of candidates fronted by political parties through closed primaries contravenes the Constitution.
3. Whether the conduct of closed-door party primaries by political parties contravenes the Constitution.
4. Whether the petitioner was denied a right to vote by reason of political parties' internal selection processes.

Orders

• Petition struck out for want of jurisdiction.
• Costs awarded to the 1st and 2nd respondents who filed answers to the petition.
• No order as to costs in respect of the remaining respondents, who filed no answer.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137(1),(3)(a)(b),(4)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.71
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.79

Cases cited (5)

• Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council and Another (Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 1998)
• Mbabaali Jude v Hon. Edward Kiwanuka Ssekandi (Constitutional Petition No. 28 of 2012)
• Herman Semujju v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 1998)
• Charles Kabagambe v Uganda Electricity Board (Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 1999)
• Paul Ssemwogerere and 2 others vs Attorney General Constitutional Petition No. of2002

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