Wakilii

Southern And Eastern African Trade Information And Negotiations Institute (SEATINI) Uganda and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 17 of 2019)

Constitutional Court · [2026] UGCC 1 · 2026 Petition Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional petition under Article 137(1), (3)(a) and (b) challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the Public Private Partnerships Act No. 13 of 2015
Decision
Petition dismissed with no constitutional violations found

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 Constitutional Court dismissed the petition challenging provisions of the Public Private Partnerships Act No. 13 of 2015. Held that the petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case demonstrating how the impugned sections contravened the Constitution. The Act's limitations on access to information under Section 47 were held to be demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. Section 46 prohibiting interference with officials does not limit public participation. Sections 4 and 20 limiting private parties to special purpose companies do not discriminate, as nothing prevents individuals from incorporating companies to participate in PPPs.

Outcome

Petition dismissed with no constitutional violations found

Facts

The petitioners, civil society organizations SEATINI Uganda and CEFROHT, challenged the Public Private Partnerships Act No. 13 of 2015. They alleged the Act excluded public and parliamentary participation in PPP procurement processes, limited access to information, and restricted participation to commercial entities, thereby contravening multiple constitutional provisions and National Objectives. The petitioners cited examples including the Kalangala Infrastructure Services project and the Lubowa International Specialized Hospital, alleging that lack of consultation led to wastage of public resources. The Attorney General opposed the petition, arguing that the Act upholds constitutional rights and provides for participatory measures including feasibility studies with stakeholder involvement.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent's omission to provide for Public participation under Sections 3(d)(f), 23, 25, 26, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36 of the Public Private Partnerships Act and the Public Private Partnerships Regulations No. 19 of 2019 are in contravention of the Constitution in so far as they only provide for bidder's participation and not citizen participation.
  2. Whether Section 46 of the Public Private Partnerships Act is inconsistent with and in contravention of the Constitution in so far as it limits public participation.
  3. Whether Sections 47(2)(d)(i) and Sections 47(2)(d)(iii) of Public Private Partnerships Act is inconsistent in so far as it restricts access to information.
  4. Whether Section 4 of the Public Private Partnerships Act is inconsistent with and in contravention with the Constitution in so far as it limits Public private partnerships to commercial transactions.
  5. Whether Sections 2 and 20 of the Public Private Partnerships Act is inconsistent with and in contravention of the Constitution in so far as it limits Public Private Partnerships to commercial transactions and disregards any entity other than a special purpose company from engaging in a public private partnership.

Orders

  • Petition dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs of the petition.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Litigation — Burden and Standard of Proof — Establishing Prima Facie Case
For the Constitutional Court to have jurisdiction, the petition must show on its face that the interpretation of a provision of the Constitution is required. It is not enough to allege merely that a constitutional provision has been violated. The petitioner must go further to show a prima facie case, the violation as alleged, and its effect before a question could be referred to the Constitutional Court.
Constitutional Interpretation — Purpose and Effect Test
When considering the constitutionality of any legislation, both its purpose and effect must be taken into account. If the purpose of an Act of Parliament is inconsistent with a provision of the Constitution, the impugned Act or section thereof will be declared unconstitutional. Similarly, if the effect of implementing a provision of the Act is inconsistent with a provision of the Constitution, the provision would be declared unconstitutional.
Right to Access Information — Limitations Under Article 41
The right of access to information under Article 41 of the Constitution is not absolute. Where information contains proprietary information protected by law or international treaty, or confidential information supplied by a bidder that could prejudice them in commercial competition, limitations on disclosure are demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society under Article 43 of the Constitution.
Public Private Partnerships — Parliamentary Approval Requirements
PPP agreements requiring government borrowing, guarantees, or loans must be authorized by Parliament under Article 159 of the Constitution. Section 12(3) of the Public Private Partnerships Act expressly provides that Government shall not borrow, guarantee or raise a loan for a public private partnership except as authorized by Article 159 of the Constitution.
Discrimination — Establishing Unconstitutional Discrimination
To establish unconstitutional discrimination under Article 21 of the Constitution, it must be shown that different treatment is given to different persons attributable only or mainly to their respective descriptions by sex, race, color, ethnic origin, tribe, birth, creed, religion, social or economic standing, political opinion, or disability. Petitioners bear the burden of demonstrating that alleged discriminatory provisions fall within these prohibited grounds.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 (as amended) Objectives II(i), X, XI(i), XIII, XIV, XXVI, XXVII(i)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 (as amended) Articles 2, 8A, 17(1)(d), 17(1)(i), 20, 20(1), 21, 28(12), 38, 41, 43, 137(1), 137(3), 159, 159(1), 159(2), 159(3)(a), 164(1), 164(2), 164(3), 233(2)(b), 233(2)(e), 237(2)(a), 237(2)(b)
  • Public Private Partnerships Act No. 13 of 2015 ss.3(d), 3(e), 3(f), 4, 11(b), 12(3), 15(2), 16(f), 20, 23, 25, 26, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 46, 47(2)(d)(i), 47(2)(d)(iii), 47(4), 48
  • Public Private Partnerships Regulations SI No. 18 of 2019
  • Public Private Partnerships Regulations SI No. 19 of 2019
  • Constitutional Court (Petition and References Rules) 2005 SI 91 of 2005 r.3
  • Evidence Act s.36
  • Access to Information Act s.28
  • Leadership Code Act (2023 Edition) ss.13, 15

Cases cited (19)

  • David Tusinguire v Attorney General [2014]
  • Raphael Baku Obudra and Another v Attorney General (Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No. 7 of 2005)
  • Ismail Sentgo v Kampala City Council and Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Paul Ssemogere and 2 Others v Attorney General (SCCA No. 1 of 2002)
  • Queen v Big M. Drug Mart Ltd (1986) LRC 332
  • Trop v Dulles 356 US [1958]
  • Amooti Godfrey Ngakoana v NEMA and 6 Others (Constitutional Appeal No. 05 of 2011)
  • Male Mabirizi Kiwanuka v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2018)
  • Kiambu County Government & 3 others v Robert N. Gakuru (2014 eKLR)
  • Glenister v President of the Republic of South Africa & Others
  • Merafong Demarcation Forum & Others v President of the Republic of South Africa & Others
  • Doctors for Life International v Speaker of the National Assembly & Others
  • Initiative for Social Economic Rights v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 7 of 2019)
  • Christopher Martin Madrama Izama v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 07 of 2016)
  • Attorney General v Salvatori Abuki (Constitutional Case No. 2 of 1997)
  • Sussex Peerage Case (1844)
  • Youth Initiative for Human Rights v Serbia Application No. 48135/06
  • Caroline Turyatemba and Others v Attorney General and Others (Court of Appeal Constitutional Petition No. 15 of 2006)
  • Pioneer Food (Pty) Ltd v Workers Against Regression and Others (Case No.C687/15, 19 April 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Southern And Eastern African Trade Information And Negotiations Institute (SEATINI) Uganda and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 17 of 2019) [2026] UGCC 1 (19 February 2026)
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.