Uganda Journalists Safety Committee and Anor v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 1997)

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.

Holding

The Constitutional Court upheld all four preliminary objections and struck out the petition. It held that redress under Article 50 must be sought by ordinary civil action in a competent court, not by petition under Article 137; that the petition was time barred, the 30-day limit in Rule 4(1) running from the date of conviction (19 December 1995) and not the date of the affidavit, with no authority supporting the argument that limitation does not apply to constitutional interpretation; that it was improper to pronounce on questions also raised in the 2nd Petitioner's pending criminal appeal; and that a petition unaccompanied by the required affidavit is invalid, that requirement being mandatory.

Outcome

Petition struck out with costs to the Respondent on preliminary objections

Facts

The 1st Petitioner, the Uganda Journalists Safety Committee, is an NGO advocating press freedom and journalists' rights. The 2nd Petitioner, Haruna Kanabi, a journalist and editor of the Shariat Newspaper, was convicted on 19 December 1995 by the Buganda Road Chief Magistrate's Court of sedition and publication of false news under sections 41, 42 and 50 of the Penal Code Act, and was fined or imprisoned in default. His appeal to the High Court was dismissed on 13 November 1996, and a further appeal to the Court of Appeal remained pending. The Petitioners filed this petition on 27 May 1997 seeking declarations that sections 37, 41, 42 and 50 of the Penal Code Act are inconsistent with the Constitution and violate the 2nd Petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 29, 30 and 41. The petition was headed under Articles 50 and 137 but stated in paragraph 6 that it was brought under Article 50. No affidavit was filed by the 1st Petitioner. The Attorney General raised preliminary objections.

Issues

1. Whether the petition was properly before the Constitutional Court when brought (partly) under Article 50 rather than Article 137 of the Constitution.
2. Whether the petition was time barred for being filed outside the 30-day period in Rule 4(1) of Legal Notice No. 4 of 1996.
3. Whether the Constitutional Court should determine the constitutional questions while the 2nd Petitioner's convictions and sentences were the subject of a pending appeal to the Court of Appeal.
4. Whether the petition was valid where it was not accompanied by an affidavit from the 1st Petitioner as required by Rule 3(6) of Legal Notice No. 4 of 1996.

Orders

• The preliminary objections are upheld.
• The petition is struck out.
• Costs to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (16)

• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.50
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137(5)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.29
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.30
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.41
• Penal Code Act (Cap 106) s.37
• Penal Code Act (Cap 106) s.41
• Penal Code Act (Cap 106) s.42
• Penal Code Act (Cap 106) s.50
• Judicature Statute 1996
• Interpretation of the Constitution (Procedure) Rules 1992 (Modification) Direction 1996 (Legal Notice No. 3 of 1996) s.2
• Rules of the Constitutional Court (Petitions for declarations under article 137) Directions 1996 (Legal Notice No. 4 of 1996) r.3(6)
• Rules of the Constitutional Court (Petitions for declarations under article 137) Directions 1996 (Legal Notice No. 4 of 1996) r.4(1)
• Rules of the Constitutional Court (Petitions for declarations under article 137) Directions 1996 (Legal Notice No. 4 of 1996) r.12(1)
• NGO Registration Statute 1989

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.

• Lumu Richard Kizito and Others v Mao Norbert and Others (Constitutional Petition 26 of 2022)

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