Wakilii

Rwanyarare and 2 Others v The Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application 85 of 1993)

High Court · [1993] UGHC 44 · 1993 Matter Referred to Constitutional Court AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for protection of fundamental rights under Article 22 of the Constitution regarding Constituent Assembly Election Rules
Decision
Matter referred to Constitutional Court for determination of constitutional question

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 held that the application raised substantial and important questions of law regarding fundamental rights and freedoms. The court referred to a Constitutional Court the question of whether Constituent Assembly Election Rules 11(1), 11(2), 12(1), 12(10), 13, 29 and 36 are consistent with constitutional protections of freedom of expression, assembly, association and non-discrimination under Articles 8, 17, 18 and 20.

Outcome

Matter referred to Constitutional Court for determination of constitutional question

Facts

The applicants, members of the Uganda Peoples Congress, applied for protection of their fundamental rights under Article 22 of the Constitution. They alleged that Constituent Assembly Election Rules 11, 12, 13, 29 and 36 violated their constitutional rights to freedom of expression, assembly, association and non-discrimination. The applicants wished to participate in Constituent Assembly elections on a distinct UPC ticket. The impugned rules prohibited candidates from disclosing political party affiliation, banned public meetings for soliciting votes except at officially organised candidates' meetings, and introduced a new 'consulting' method of campaigning. The applicants cited instances where police had dispersed their peaceful political meetings. The Attorney General, after hearing submissions, applied for the constitutional questions to be referred to a Constitutional Court for interpretation.

Issues

  1. Whether the matter raises a substantial question of constitutional interpretation requiring reference to a Constitutional Court
  2. Whether Rules 11(1), 11(2), 12(1), 12(10), 13, 29 and 36 of the Constituent Assembly Election Rules are consistent with Articles 8(2)(b), 17(1), 18(1) and 20(1) of the Constitution of Uganda

Orders

  • The following question is referred to the Constitutional Court: 'Are 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 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 Substantial Question of Law
Where an application involves questions as to the interpretation of the Constitution, a single judge may deal with such questions but for the sake of uniformity and because of their importance, questions involving substantial points of constitutional interpretation should be referred to a Constitutional Court consisting of not less than three judges.
Constitutional Interpretation — Duty to Refer — Substantial and Important Question
Under Article 87 of the Constitution and Rule 3(2) of the Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 1992, where in any proceedings a question arises as to the interpretation of the Constitution involving a substantial question of law, the court may refer and shall refer if any party requests the question to the High Court constituted as a Constitutional Court, provided the court is of the opinion that the question is sufficiently important to the proceedings to require such reference.
Bill of Rights — Purpose and Protection — Infringement by Well-Intentioned Legislation
The purpose of a bill of rights is to withdraw certain subjects from political controversy, place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and establish them as legal principles to be applied by courts. The preservation of liberties does not depend on motives; a suppression of liberty has the same effect whether the cause be a reformer or an outlaw, and what well-intentioned persons propose may nonetheless impair liberty.
Fundamental Rights and Freedoms — Importance of Constitutional Challenge
No infraction affecting the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in Articles 8 to 20 of the Constitution may be treated as unimportant or a less substantial matter. Such matters may have important consequences for human rights jurisprudence and should be dealt with authoritatively at every appropriate moment.
Constituent Assembly Election Rules — Constitutional Challenge — Restrictions on Political Activity
Rules prohibiting disclosure of political party affiliation during Constituent Assembly elections, banning public meetings for soliciting votes except at officially organised meetings, and prescribing only 'consulting' as a method of campaign, raise substantial and important constitutional questions regarding their consistency with fundamental rights to freedom of expression, assembly, association and non-discrimination.

Legislation cited (16)

Cases cited (7)

  • Masaba v Republic [1967] EA 488
  • Attorney General v Milton Obote Foundation & Another (Court of Appeal No. 7 of 1992)
  • Shah v Attorney General [1970] EA 523
  • 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 159 SCRA 389

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rwanyarare and 2 Others v The Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application 85 of 1993) [1993] UGHC 44 (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.