Share
Okori v Attorney General and Ors (Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 2020) [2021] UGCC 39 (1 March 2021)
- Citation
- [2021] UGCC 39
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Constitutional Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Bamugemereire, JCC, Kakuru, JCC, Madrama, JCC, Mulyagonja, JCC, Buteera, DCJ
- Case number
- Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 2020
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Constitutional Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Bamugemereire, JCC, Kakuru, JCC, Madrama, JCC, Mulyagonja, JCC, Buteera, DCJ
- Case number
- Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 2020
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the petition was misconceived as it did not raise any questions requiring interpretation of the Constitution. The petitioner was not denied his right to vote by the nomination process of political parties, as individuals are free to participate in elections either as party members or independently. Political parties are voluntary organizations, and their internal processes, including primaries, are governed by their own constitutions in compliance with Article 71. The court found no legal basis for the claim that closed primaries contravened constitutional rights. Accordingly, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition and struck it out with costs to the respondents who filed answers.
Court disposition
petition struck out for lack of jurisdiction
Orders
- Petition is struck out with costs to the 1st and 2nd respondents who filed answers.
- No order as to costs in respect of the rest of the respondents as they did not file any answer to the petition.
02
Material facts
Parties
Okori James
PetitionerAttorney General
RespondentThe Electoral Commission Uganda
RespondentForum for Democratic Change (FDC)
RespondentNational Resistance Movement (NRM)
RespondentThe Democratic Party (DP)
RespondentUganda Peoples Congress (UPC)
RespondentJustice Forum (JEEMA) Party
RespondentParliament of the Republic of Uganda
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the acts of the Electoral Commission and political parties in conducting closed primaries contravene various constitutional provisions.
- 02
Whether Ugandan citizens have a right to a direct democracy system of governance under the Constitution.
- 03
Whether Parliament and Government have exclusive authority to make laws or decisions regarding sovereignty and other national matters without meaningful stakeholder consultations.
- 04
Whether political parties can hold elections by lining up rather than secret ballot under the Constitution.
- 05
Whether the petitioner was denied his right to vote due to the nomination process of candidates.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The petitioner argued that the Electoral Commission's acceptance of candidates nominated through closed primaries by political parties violated his constitutional rights, including the right to vote, access to information, and freedom of expression. He claimed that closed primaries deprived voters of meaningful participation and information about candidates, rendering his right to vote at parliamentary and local council levels meaningless. He further contended that citizens should have a direct democracy system and that Parliament and Government should not make decisions on sovereignty and national matters without collective rights and meaningful consultations.
- Respondent
- The respondents contended that political parties are voluntary organizations regulated by their own constitutions, which must comply with Article 71 of the Constitution. Membership and participation in party primaries are limited to party members, but individuals who are not members are free to form their own parties or contest elections independently. The respondents argued that the petitioner was not denied his right to vote, as he could vote for any candidate of his choice or contest for elective posts. They asserted that the petition raised no constitutional interpretation issues and was misconceived.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Article 71 of the Constitution of Uganda
Political parties are voluntary organizations regulated by their own constitutions, and participation in their primaries is limited to members.
- 02
Constitution of Uganda, Articles 1, 59
Individuals who are not party members are free to contest elections independently or vote for any candidate of their choice.
- 03
Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council & Another Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 1998
Jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court is limited to matters requiring interpretation of the Constitution.
- 04
Mbabaali Jude v Hon. Edward Kiwanuka Ssekandi Constitutional Petition No. 0028 of 2012
A petition that does not raise questions of constitutional interpretation is misconceived and may be struck out.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the petition was misconceived as it did not raise any questions requiring interpretation of the Constitution. The petitioner was not denied his right to vote by the nomination process of political parties, as individuals are free to participate in elections either as party members or independently. Political parties are voluntary organizations, and their internal processes, including primaries, are governed by their own constitutions in compliance with Article 71. The court found no legal basis for the claim that closed primaries contravened constitutional rights. Accordingly, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition and struck it out with costs to the respondents who filed answers.
Obiter and limits
- Persons who do not subscribe to any of the political parties are free to form their own or participate in elections and/or political activities as individuals.
- The contention that the petitioner was denied a right to vote because political parties did not allow him to participate in their elections has no legal basis.
- Had we not struck it out, we would have dismissed it for being frivolous and vexatious.
Court disposition
petition struck out for lack of jurisdiction
- Petition is struck out with costs to the 1st and 2nd respondents who filed answers.
- No order as to costs in respect of the rest of the respondents as they did not file any answer to the petition.
Source and reliance status
Constitutional Court of Uganda
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Constitutional Court of Uganda
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 06 OF 2020
OKORI JAMES........................................................................................... PETITIONER
VERSUS
- 1. ATTORNEY GENERAL - 2. THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION UGANDA - 3. FORUM FOR DEMOCRATIC CHANGE (FDC) - 4. NATIONAL RESISTANCE MOVEMENT (NRM) - 5. THE DEMOCRTAIC PARTY (DP) - 6. UGANDA PEOPLES CONGRESS (UPC) - 7. JUSTICE FORUM (JEEMA) PARTY - 8. PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA............... RESPONDENTS - CORAM: Hon. Mr. Justice Richard Buteera, DCJ Hon. Mr. Justice Kenneth Kakuru, JA/JCC Hon. Lady Justice Catherine Bamugemereire B. K, JA/JCC. Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama, JA/JCC Hon. Lady Justice Irene Esther Mulyagonja, JA/JCC
IUDGMENT OF COURT
The petitioner, who is respecting himself, brought this petition under Article 137 (1), (3) (a) (b) and 4 ofthe Constitution.
The grounds ofthe petition are set out as follows;-
*(i) The act of the 2nd respondent in receiving fronted/nominated candidatesfrom political parties through closed primaries andgoing ahead to nominate them*
1 <sup>|</sup> P a g e
*is inconsistent with and contravenes Articles 1 (1), (2), (3),(4), 29, 38 (1),(2), 41(1), 54, 59, 62, 67(1), 68, 69(1), 70, 71, 73. 74, 78(1) ofthe constitution of the Republic ofUganda, 1995.*
- *(ii)The acts of the 3rd, 4th, <sup>5</sup>th, 6f <sup>7</sup>threspondents in conducting closed door primaries contravenes Articles <sup>1</sup> (1), (2), (3),(4), 29, 38 (1 ),(2), 41(1), 54, 59, 62, 67(1), 68, 69(1), 70, 71, 73. 74, 78(1) of the constitution of the Republic ofUganda, 1995.* - *(Hi) Whether Ugandan Citizens under Articles <sup>1</sup> (1), (2), (3),(4), 29, 38 (1 ),(2), 41(1), 54, 59, 62, 67(1), 68, 69(1), 70, 71, 73. 74, 78(1) ofthe constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995 have a right to direct democracy system of governance that places citizens as sovereigns above the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary.* - *(iv) Whether Parliament under Article 79 and Government hove exclusive authority to make laws or decisions regarding Our Sovereignty, Natural Resources use, Military, Foreign Affairs, National among others otter elections without Collective Rights ofcitizens ofUganda through meaningful stakeholder consultations that lead to self-determination or Ratification underArticle <sup>1</sup> ofthe constitution.* - *(v) Whether Political parties have powers to hold elections by lining up other than by secret ballot under the 1995 Constitution.*
The petitioner seeks 22 declarations and 11 orders. We have found on reason to reproduce them here.
In his affidavit in support of the petition, he states;-
- *1. ...* - *2. THAT in the 2016 general elections, the electoral commission presented candidates on the ballot paper for voting in my constituency that were fronted by political parties but were undesirable and unknown to me,*
*and I therefore only participated in Presidential elections and not Parliamentary elections as the candidates at parliamentary and Local Council levels were unknown to me which made my right to vote at Parliamentary and Local Council level meaningless.*
- *3. THAT my area Member of Parliament(Hon. Peter Sematimba) spent 2 years of his Election term in Court over academic documents and lost in the High Court but emerged victorious on appeal in the Court of Appeal judgment dated 13th, September 2017. But later on the 15th ofNovember, 2019, while I was watching news at 9:00pm, my area Member of Parliament was televised on NBS Television Uganda News (Next Media Uganda) sitting senior six exams which is the minimum formal requirement and which wasbeing challenged in the courts oflaw at Kakoola High School in Ziroobwe Sub-county in Luweero District. This isfrustrating and embarrassing for me as a voter and resident ofthe constituency.* - *4. THAT having read about my rights to vote under the constitution, now I believe that Party organization impacts on voter information, the party and the candidate and therefore by holding closed primaries, the petitioner is denied useful information as he the petitioner and other eligible voters miss out on analyzing the political parties ideologies, candidates ideologies/knowledge of the affairs/concerns within his constituency thereby denying the petitioner his right to access information contrary toArticles 1(1),(2),(3),(4),29,78(1),41(1),38,67(1), 69(1) & 78(1) of the constitution, because they impact on voter information impacts' on free expression ofthe will ofelectors and genuine elections.* - *5. THAT closed primaries are an indirect restriction on Article 78(1), freedomof expression, freedom of access to information like freedom of political debate. That it's important that the period preceding general elections that opinions of the candidate and that of the people is freely*
*circulated as it is essential to check a candidates voting intentions to contestfor elective positions.*
The operation of political organisations is restricted to their membership. They are founded by and constituted of individuals with a common political ideology, agenda or programme. This is usually set out in a manifesto. They are regulated by their own constitutions which are required to be in compliance with *Article 71* of the Constitution. They recruit eligible members of the public to join their party voluntarily.
Persons who do not subscribe to any of the political parties are free to form their own or participate in elections and/or political activities as individuals. Such individuals are free to vote for any candidates of their choice during elections, without restriction. They may also opt to contest for any elective post at any level in accordance with the Constitution and the electoral laws.
The contention that the petitioner was denied a right to vote because political parties did not allow him to participate in their elections has no legal basis.
This petition is clearly misconceived. It raises no questions as to interpretation of the Constitution. See: *Ismail Serugo and Kampala City Council & Another Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 1998, Mbabaali Jude vs Hon. Edward Kiwanuka Ssekandi Constitutional Petition No. 0028 of 2012, Herman Semujju vs Attorney General Constitutional Petition No. <sup>1</sup> of 1998, Charles Kabagambe vs Uganda Electricity Board Constitutional Petition No. 2 of1999* and *Paul Ssemwogerere and 2 others vsAttorney General Constitutional Petition No. of2002.*
In the premises, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this petition. We accordingly strike it out with costs to the 1st and 2nd respondents who filed answers to it. Had we not struck it out, we would have dismissed it for being frivolous and vexatious.
No order is made as to costs in respect of the rest of the respondents as they did not file any answer to the petition
We so order.
Dated at Kampala this...................................... day of............................... 2021.
Richard Buteera, DCJ JUSTICE OF APPEAL/CONSTITUTIONAL COURT Kenneth Kakuru JUSTICE OF APPEAL/CONSTITUTIONAL COURT Catherine Bamugemereire B. K JUSTICE OF APPEAL/CONSTITUTIONAL COURT Christopher Madrama JUSTICE OF APPEAL/CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
JUSTICE OF APPEAL/CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
5 <sup>|</sup> P a g e
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.