Previous 8 / 18 Next

permanent offices in Trade Unions is in contravention of and inconsistent with Article 40(3) of the Constitution. 1. The petitioners pray for declarations that the impugned provisions of the law and or actions are inconsistent with and contravene the Constitution. They also prayed for costs of this petition. Answer to the CP No. 48 of 2010 1. The respondent opposed the petition. It asserted that neither the impugned provisions of the law nor any actions complained against by the petitioner contravene or are inconsistent with the Constitution. It prayed that this petition be dismissed with costs. 1. The major issue for determination is whether section 8(4) (b) (c) (d) and (e) of the Parliamentary Election Act is inconsistent with and contravenes Articles 29(e) and 78 (4) of the Constitution. We shall take this issue first. Whether section 8(4) (b) (c) (d) and (e) of the Parliamentary Election Act is inconsistent with and contravenes Articles 29 (1) (e) and 78 (4) of the Constitution. 1. We shall start by setting out the relevant provisions of the law. Article 29(1) (e) of the Constitution states, "Every person shall have the right to ? (e) freedom of association which shall include the freedom to form and join associations or unions, including trade unions and political and other civic organisations." 1. Article 78(4) of the Constitution provides, "(1)Parliament shall consist of --(a) members directly elected to represent constituencies; (b) one woman representative for every district; (c) such numbers of representatives of the army, youth and workers, persons with disabilities and other groups as Parliament may determine; (4) Parliament shall, by law, prescribe the procedure for elections of representatives referred to in clause (1)(b) and (c) of this Article."[Emphasis is ours.] 1. Parliament enacted the law, the Parliamentary Elections Act, 17 of 2005, under which in section 8 it purported to comply with the above constitutional directives. The relevant portion states, "(4) The following provisions shall apply to district women representatives and special interest groups referred to in the subsection (2)" (a) (b) the representatives of the Uganda Peoples? Defence Forces shall be elected in a manner to be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister under section 100;

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Kasozi & 3 Ors v Attorney General & 2 Ors

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether forcing PWDs to be members of NUDIPU-affiliated associations to vote (as per Regulation 10) violated their constitutional rights, including the freedom of association (Article 29(1)(e)), the right to participate in public affairs (Article 38(1)), the right to redress (Article 50(1)), and the right to vote (Article 59(1)); Whether Parliament unconstitutionally abdicated its mandate under Article 78(4) of the Constitution by delegating the power to create electoral procedures to a Minister instead of prescribing them directly through legislation; and whether the legal framework for PWD elections, particularly after the 2013 legislative amendments, was constitutional.

Alleged Acts: In 2010, the petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the legal framework governing the election of representatives for special interest groups, including Persons with Disabilities (PWDs), to the Parliament of Uganda. The petitions were not heard until late 2015. In the interim, the 2011 general elections were conducted under the challenged rules. The 2011 electoral process for PWD representatives utilized an electoral college system that relied on the National Union of Disabled Persons of Uganda (NUDIPU), a voluntary non-governmental organization. Regulation 10 of the applicable electoral regulations effectively required any PWD wishing to participate in the electoral college to be a member of an association affiliated with NUDIPU. This had the practical effect of disenfranchising any PWD who was not a member of a NUDIPU-affiliated group. While the litigation was pending, Parliament passed the National Council for Disability (Amendment) Act in 2013. This new legislation altered the electoral process by mandating the Electoral Commission to establish Electoral Committees for PWDs at all levels, from village to district. Under this reformed system, the district-level committees would converge nationally to elect the five parliamentary representatives for PWDs, thereby removing the dependency on NUDIPU.

Procedural history: The constitutional petitions were initially filed in 2010 but experienced significant delays. The 2011 general elections proceeded under the legal framework that the petitioners were challenging. During the pendency of the case, Parliament enacted the National Council for Disability (Amendment) Act 2013. The Constitutional Court finally delivered its judgment on the consolidated petitions on September 29, 2015. Following the decision, affected parties lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court of Uganda.

Summary: Kasozi & 3 Ors v Attorney General & 2 Ors is a landmark Ugandan decision on the intersection of disability rights, freedom of association, and electoral law. The Constitutional Court invalidated the 2011 electoral framework that disenfranchised PWDs by requiring them to be members of a specific NGO to vote in the PWD electoral college. While affirming that Parliament had unconstitutionally delegated its legislative duties, the Court found that the 2013 amendments to the National Council for Disability Act had corrected these constitutional defects. This case is significant in Africa for establishing a strong legal precedent against using mandatory associational requirements as a barrier to political participation for persons with disabilities and for reinforcing the principle that electoral rules for marginalized groups must be subject to rigorous legislative and constitutional review.

Conclusion: By a majority of four to one, the Constitutional Court granted the petitions. The Court found that Article 78(4) of the Constitution explicitly places the responsibility for prescribing electoral procedures for special interest groups on Parliament. By delegating this authority to a Minister, Parliament had improperly abdicated its constitutional duty. Consequently, any procedures created by the Minister under this delegated authority were deemed unconstitutional. The Court held that the 2011 electoral framework was unconstitutional. Specifically, Regulation 10, which mandated membership in NUDIPU-affiliated groups as a prerequisite for participation in the PWD electoral college, was a direct violation of several fundamental rights. It infringed upon the freedom of association (Article 29(1)(e)) by compelling PWDs to join an organization against their will. This barrier also disenfranchised non-members, violating their right to participate in public affairs (Article 38(1)) and their right to vote (Article 59(1)). The Court concluded that the National Council for Disability (Amendment) Act 2013 had effectively remedied the constitutional flaws of the previous system. By tasking the official Electoral Commission with forming inclusive electoral committees from the grassroots level up, the amendment removed the discriminatory NUDIPU membership requirement.

Legal Issue(s)

Freedom of association and assembly
Voters' Rights

Applicable Law(s): Constitution of Uganda, Parliamentary Elections Act, and the National Council for Disability Act.

Region: Africa

Country: Uganda

Language of Decision

English

Court: Constitutional Court

Election Type: Parliamentary

Date of decision: Sep 29, 2015

Geolocation

Latitude: 0.315833

Longitude: 32.579167

: Geolocation

Link: https://sheriahub.com/cases/ug/caselaw/kasozi-3-ors-v-attorney-general-2-ors-constitutional-petition-37-of-2010-2015-ugcc-2-29-september-2015.pdf

Primary Documents

Kasozi & 3 Ors v Attorney General & 2 Ors.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Kasozi & 3 Ors v Attorney General & 2 Ors

Primary Documents

Notifications