Constitutional Interpretation

Bukenya v Attorney General (CONSTITUTIONAL APPEAL NO 03 OF 2011) [2017] UGSC 18 (22 May 2017);


Search Summary: 

The appellant) filed this appeal against the
Ruling of the Constitutional Court which held
that the Judicature (Fundamental Rights and
Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules,
2008 were unconstitutional.
The background was that the said rules were
made by the committee instead of the
parliament. The grounds of the appeal are that
the Constitutional Court erred to have held that
Parliament had not made any law for the
enforcement of fundamental rights and

freedoms and that Constitutional Court erred to
have held that the Rules Committee was not
empowered to make Rules for enforcement of
fundamental rights and freedoms.

Headnote and Holding: 

The court held that the rules were made in
contravention of article 50 of the constitution.
That the rules having been made by a body
created by the Judicature Act had been passed
legally. That the Rules were made by a body
legally established and mandated to do so and
(b) the failure by the Executive to table these
Rules did not make them unconstitutional
especially in light of the fact that there is no
rule providing that failure to lay these rules
before Parliament will render them
unconstitutional. That indeed no special law
had been enacted in regards with the
fundamental human rights.


Subscribe to RSS - Constitutional Interpretation