So most of us know that the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court of Uganda is to interpret the Constitution, right?
We, however, run the possibility of interpreting that constitutional mandate narrowly and in a shallow way as a recent decision of the Constitutional Court delivered on Friday last week in the case of Geoffrey Kazinda v Attorney General indicates.
Well, in that case, the Applicant Mr. Geoffrey Kazinda applied to the Constitutional Court under Articles 137(1) and 50(2) of the Constitution of Uganda, among other provisions of the law, seeking to have the Court hold the government of Uganda, represented by the Attorney General in contempt of the Court for allegedly continuing to prosecute him under successive criminal cases arising from similar facts relating to his former Job as a Principal Accountant in the Office of the Prime Minister, contrary to the orders of the Constitutional Court in Constitutional Petition No. 30 of 2014 which had prohibited the State from:
“using any process of any court so as to initiate and prosecute the petitioner [Kazinda] for any offences similar in character or founded on the same facts whatsoever arising out of or in connection with his former employment as Principal Accountant, office of the Prime Minister.”
One of the main issues that arose out of this case was the question of whether the application for contempt of Court was properly before the Court in other words whether the Constitutional Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a contempt of Court application.
The Constitutional Court comprised of Justices of Appeal/Constitutional Court; Christopher Gashirabake, Eva Luswata, Oscar Kihika, Moses Kazibwe Kawumi, Asa Mugenyi ruled that the Constitutional Court has jurisdiction to entertain a contempt of Court application if the same has its roots in its interpretative function.
This is in line with the common law and Article 137(4) of the Constitution which states that upon determination of a question of constitutional intepretation if the Court considers there is a need to make redress, in addition to the declarations sought, the Court may grant an order for redress.
Accordingly, it is illogical, the Court held, to expect the Court not to have jurisdiction to consider applications if its orders are not complied with.
“…a careful reading of the Article 137 of the Constitution shows that the Court is clothed with power to make an order of redress where after determining the Constitutionality for an Act there is need for such. The Applicant’s application is concerned with constitutional court orders where there is non-compliance with them after the court has made declarations. If a party were to say that the declarations the court made are not being complied with, should the court turn a blind eye and say its job is to simply make declarations? A court that cannot have its orders enforced or complied with is toothless. It is redundant.” The Constitutional Court stated.
Benjamin Ahikiiriza is a legal writer and publisher of the Legal Reports Digital Media.