Human Rights

Uganda Law Society v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda ( (Constitutional Petition No. 18 of 2005)) [2006] UGCC 10 (30 January 2006);

Flynote: 

Search Summary: 

The petitioner had an interest and was being
affected by the matters arising from and
connected with the arrest, detention, charge
and trial of Col. (Rtd). Dr. Kizza Besigye and
22 others. The petition is brought under article
50 and article 137 of the constitution of
Uganda. The subjects of the petition were
charged for treason and Kizza Besigye was
charged separately for rape allegedly
committed in 1997. The accused at trial applied
for bail and some were granted the bail but
before they could be processed out, they were
arrested and taken back to prison. The
following day, the accused were taken and
tried at the General Court Martial for treason
and possession of fire arms on facts similar to
the ones in the trial court.
The petitioner sought a declaration that the acts
of the flying squad contravened article 23 and
128 of the constitution, that the concurrent
proceedings in the court martial and the
civilian courts contravened article 28, 44 and is
inconsistent with article 139 of the
constitution, that s 119 of the UPDF Act that
subjects civilians not employed by or
voluntarily or in any other way officially
connected with the Uganda Peoples Defence

Forces to military law and discipline, is
inconsistent with Articles 126(1) and 210 of
the Constitution, that the joint trials of civilians
and members of the Defence Forces in military
courts for offences under the UPDF Act is
inconsistent with Articles 126(1) and 210 of
the Constitution, that the trial of the Accused
persons before the General Court Martial
constituted under the UPDF Act on a charge of
terrorism whose penalty on conviction is death
is in contravention of Articles 22(1) and 126(1)
of the Constitution, that he act of charging and
proceeding to try the accused persons with the
offence of terrorism, an offence which is solely
triable by the High Court in the General Court
Martial under the UPDF Act is inconsistent
with the provisions of Articles 28(1) and
126(1) and 210 of the Constitution.

Headnote and Holding: 

The court held that the acts of security agents
at the premises of the High Court on the 16
November, 2005 contravened Articles 23(1)
(6) and 128 of (1) (2) (3) of the Constitution,
that the effect of concurrent proceedings in
both the High Court and General court Martial
where both courts have jurisdiction is not
inconsistent with Articles 28(9) and 139(1) of
the Constitution as the General Court Martial is
not subordinate to the High Court but
equivalent to it, that the General Court Martial
had no jurisdiction to try the charges preferred
against the accused in the said court, that s

119(1) (g) and (h) of the UPDF Act is not
inconsistent with Articles 28(1) 126(1) and 210
of the Constitution, that the joint trial of
civilians and members of the UPDF in Military
Court for offences under the UPDF Act is not
inconsistent with Articles 28(1), 126(1) and
210 of the Constitution, that the trial of the 23
accused persons before the General Court
Martial on charges of terrorism contravenes
Articles 22(1) 28(1) and 126(1) of the
Constitution.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Human Rights