Preliminary Objection's Ruling: Zachary Olum and Another v. The Attorney General, Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 1999

Constitutional Court, Uganda

Facts:

The petitioners sought a declaration that the refusal by Parliament to grant the petitioners and other members leave to give evidence and use the Hansard in the Constitutional Court was inconsistent and contravened Articles 1(1) and (3), 3(1) and (2), 20(1) and (2), 28(1), 29(1)(a) and (d), 41, 43(1)(c) and 44(c) of the Constitution; section 15 of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act is inconsistent with these Articles and; rule 17(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Uganda is inconsistent with Articles 88 and 89 of the Constitution. It was contended for the petitioner, among other things, that section 15 of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act is inconsistent with clauses xxvi(I) and xxix (a), (f) and (g) of the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy as stipulated in the Constitution. 

 Counsel for the respondent raised six preliminary points of objection: that the petition does not raise any question or point for interpretation of the Constitution with the result that court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition because the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy appearing immediately after the preamble to the Constitution are not constitutional provisions envisaged by Article 137 of the Constitution under which this petition is brought and the Articles of the Constitution said to be violated are irrelevant to the petitioners' complaints; that the petition is not supported by evidence when it should; that the petition is frivolous and vexatious for raising issues in a constitutional petition that is on appeal; that the petition does not disclose a cause of action against the Attorney General as it does not show that the Government of Uganda is liable to the petitioners in any way; that court is not competent to adjudicate on matters of internal proceedings of Parliament and that the petition is time barred.

Key Issues:

(a) Whether the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy are Constitutional Provisions;

(b) Whether a breach of the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy amounts to a breach of the Constitution; and

(c) Whether the Court is competent to adjudicate on matters of internal proceedings of Parliament.

Held:

(i) The Constitutional Court has jurisdiction conferred on it by Article 137

of the Constitution in matters where it is alleged that an Act of Parliament or any other law is inconsistent with or contravening a provision. This provision allows it to determine whether section 15 of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act is inconsistent with or contravening the Articles referred to in the petition. Whether Articles are relevant or not is a matter of substance and not jurisdiction;

(ii) The National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy contained in the Constitution are an important part of the Constitution as they form the spirit de core of the Constitution, are non-justiciable and are important canons for the interpretation of the Constitution; and

(iii) The Attorney General can only represent the Government in actions to which it is a party. In cases of public interest, the Attorney General should be made a party, and if he is left out, the court will join him as a respondent of its volition under Order 1, rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Objections overruled.

Compiled by Jaba Shadrack