STRUCTURES AND ARRANGEMENTS UNDER THE 1962 CONSTITUTION
There were crucial factors in the constitutional framework that resulted in the period of 1962-1966 being regarded as the stagnant years. And these included;
1. The question of the head
of state which was not addressed by the independence constitution.
2. The question of the federal
relations in particular between
3. The question of the relation between
4. Overall problems of
governance particularly in the relations between the executive and the
other organs of government.
Invariably there were other problems including the
opportunistic tendencies on the part of personalities in whom government and
political authority was vested.
1. The Question of the Head of state
The independence constitution had maintained Her Majesty
the Queen of England as the head of state and so necessitated the determination
of a proper head of state for an independent Uganda. There were different
opinions particularly between the parties and the kingdoms as to the criteria
as to who should be head of state. The broad membership of UPC floated the idea
that the party should provide the head of state. Meanwhile KY and
After several discussions, it was
resolved to give the office of the head of state to
one of the traditional rulers.
When the debate was later conducted in the National Assembly the majority vote
was in favour of a traditional ruler being the only
person eligible to be a
constitutional head of state. Thus by the Constitution of
and V.P of
these offices. On 4th
October, 1963, Sir Fredrick Mutesa II, the Kabaka of
Joweth Lyagoba v. Bakasonga and
Ors [1963] E.A 57
Rather than resolve the lacuna
in a constitutional framework, the question of the head of state only took the
new dimensions and bread new problems. Although the office of the head of state
was largely formal and non-executive (in the sense of constitutional monarchy
in a west minster type/style of government), tensions would begin to surface in
the relations between the figurehead – head of state and the P.M. The issues
would arise as to what the formality of the office of the head of state meant.
Most significantly controversy arose as to who had precedence as between the
head of state and the P.M, as to who was to represent Uganda at international
conferences, as to whether Mutesa II should be allowed the police band at his
birth day party etc.
But perhaps most significant as
opposed to these rather petty issues was the
question of the allegiance of
Mutesa II to both offices of head of state and Kabaka
of
counties when Mutesa II refused
to sign the memorandum of transfer the counties
to Bunyoro. The situation was
made worse because the relations between the two
personalities Mutesa and Obote
gradually turned out into hatred for each other.
Invaluably the tension between
the two personalities was nonetheless underlined
by the broader question of
2. The question of
Joseph
Kazaraine v. the Lukiiko [1963] E.A 472
A.G. of Ug. v. Kabaka’s
Gov’t [1965] E.A 393
Coming up in 1965 in
the wake of the lost counties referendum a year early in 1964, question had had disastrous effect upon the Kabaka’s
status and relations with Obote, the case highlighted how fragile the
constitutional framework of the 1962 constitution was particularly as regards
the federal relations of Buganda in a unitary Uganda. The lost counties issue
had largely marked the end of the UPC-KY alliance. This case spelt the doom of
the 1962 constitutional arrangement (chaos turned out only a year later in
1966).
Facts: The case involved distribution of finances and
revenues between the central government and Buganda government and the question
of how much in grants Buganda was entitled from the central government.
3. The question of the
lost counties had been a controversy at the constitutional conferences and
the underlying tensions had remained throughout the early years of
independence. By 1961, it was depicted that at least ¾ of the people in
Bugangaizi were Banyoro not withstanding 60 years of Buganda rule. In Buyaga
the situation was even more striking with 15 Banyoro for every Muganda – Even
Sir Tito Winyi the Omukama of Bunyoro argued that the case of the restoration
of the two counties to his kingdom could not be logically denied. The tense
relations between the two kingdoms and the aspirations of the peoples of the
counties would be underpinned by two developments in 1963 and 1964.
The first was the case of Joseph Kazaraine v. the
Lukiiko
The applicant Mr Kazaraine was convicted for inciting the
people of Buyaga and Bugangaizi not to pay taxes to the Kabaka’s government and
for obstructing chiefs from carrying out their rightful duties of revenue
collection. The issue before the High Court was to whom jurisdiction over the
two counties was vested as between the central government and the
Reference was made to the 2nd constitutional
conference question had directed that the two counties should vest in the
central government. It would obviously follow that the central government was
entitled to exercise jurisdiction over the province. However because it was not
clear when exactly the two counties were supposed to come under the
jurisdiction of the central government. The court held that
Kazaraine’s case is important for a number of reasons:
1. It underpinned the tension in the
relations between
2. It portrayed the confusion the 1962
constitution had brought about with respect to an issue that was not resolved
in the run up to independence.
3. It demonstrated the problem of the
unitary-federal arrangements of the 1962 constitution were likely to cause.
The second development was the
referendum on the lost counties in 1964 between 1962-64 the Kabaka government
had laboured to justify why the two counties should remain in Buganda. They
presented a number of reasons including;
i The undesirability of upsetting the
administrative arrangements that had existed for such a long period.
ii The inch endowment of Buganda
than that of Bunyoro which meant that the two counties would benefit more under
Buganda.
iii The benevolence and non-sectarianism
character of the Kabaka’s rule.
iv That the development of the counties
had been secure under
Nevertheless,
the central government went ahead with the referendum which was held on 4th
November, 1964. The two counties overwhelmingly voted to return to Bunyoro
under the constitution. Kabaka Mutesa II, the then president was supposed to
sign the instrument of transfer of the two counties but refused to do so.
Obote
as the Prime Minister then put the matter before the National Assembly and
subsequently the motion for transfer of the counties was confirmed through the
constitution of
The Kabaka’s Government
V. A. G. of
The
referendum would mark the final death of UPC – KY alliance following the
referendum. There was widespread hostility in
For
Obote and UPC, the referendum acted as a boost as it showed that he could no
longer be held at ransom to
In
the early years of independence autocratic as well as disrespect for the
constitution would become a future of governance this was particularly evident
in the relation between the executive and other organs of government. Obote’s
government having the majority in parliament (National Assembly) demonstrated a
tendency of the executive to dictate the laws enacted by the National Assembly
more significantly though was the disrespect by the executive of the decisions
of the independence of the judicially.
This
attitude of the executive towards the judiciary was manifested as early as 1962
in respect of the case of Jowett Lyagoba v Bakasonga & Others
[1963] E.A 57.
The
case concerned the election of the Basoga District Council and the
legality in particular of the election of specifically elected members of the
council. The issue was whether a resolution by the council and the endorsement
by the governors of
Three
month after the court’s decisions, the National Assembly enacted the Busoga
Election Validation Act No. 9 1963 which validated the elections and in
effect over turned the decisions of the court.
THE 1966 KABAKA CRISIS AND ITS
IMPLICATION FOR CONSTITUTIONALISM
The
1966 crisis can be traced to the growing animosity between Buganda government
and the central Government in the aftermath of the 1964 referendum on the lost
counties and this was also reflected in the disputes before the courts in
1964 and 1965, further the growing
suspicions and conspiracies during the period of 1965 and 1966 (including the
Kabaka’s relations with the P.M, the power struggles in UPC between Ibingira and Obote and the crossing
of the floor by opposition MPs ensured that the country had by 1966 become a powder keg ready to explode. That the 1966
crisis occurred was the inevitable consequence of a series of events commencing
in early 1960s.
In
January 1966, during a session of the National Assembly, a KY member of Parliament
Daudi Ocheng alleged that the PM, Obote and his ministers Adoko Nekyon and
Felix Onama and Idi Amin were involved in illegal gold trading in the
In
February during a cabinet meeting in
1.
The abolition of the posts of
president and V.P
2.
Declaration of a state of
emergency in
3. The dismissal of Shaban Opolot as army commander and his
replacement by Idi Amin. (Resulting in the case of Oplot v. A.G 1969 (EA).
The 1962 constitution was
subsequently abrogated in April 1966 with significant
implications:
i) The abolition of kingdoms in
ii) Declaration of
iii) The
promulgation of the 1966 interim constitution (whose legality was subsequently
challenged before the courts) and ultimately the 1967 republican constitution.
The reaction to these constitutional developments within
IMPLICATIONS OF THE CRISIS FOR CONSTITUTIONALISM
1 The abolition of the kingdoms which followed the abrogation
of the 1962 constitution in April 1966. This was later affirmed by article 118
of the 1967 constitution (this article remained in place until it was repeated in
1993 by the NRM government.
Shah v. AG 1969 E.A
Shah had a contract with the defunct
2. The declaration of
The 1967 constitution affected the separation of powers
and constitutionalism in a number of instances including the making of the
Attorney General a cabinet member as apposed to the 1962 constitution when he
wasn’t. Further the office of the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) was
brought under the A.G which had not been the case in 1962. This resulted in the politicization of the persecution of opposition
leaders.
3. The declaration of a state of emergency initially in
Ibingira case followed the arrest during a cabinet
meeting in
The court of Appeal directed that the matter be remitted
to the high court for grant of orders of habeas corpus in order to conform with
the decision of the court of Appeal, the government brought the Ibingiras from
Karamoja up to Entebbe where they released them but upon stepping out of the
airport they were rearrested and detained under the Emergency Powers (Detention)
Regulations which were then applicable only in Buganda. This resulted
in the 2nd Ibingira case in which they challenged their re-arrest
and detention as having been undertaken in bad faith by the government and in
violation Art. 35 of the interim 1966. In the meantime, prior to their
re-arrest, the National Assembly had enacted the Deportation Validation Act
which sought to provide government the immunity against any claim for
compensation by Ibingira and others in respect of the habeas corpus proceedings
in the first case.
The high court refused to hear on merit, the 2nd
case brought by Ibingira and once again the matter went before the E. A court
of Appeal that there was absence of bad faith in the government bringing the
applicants to
The stance taken by the court in the 2nd case
demonstrated the demise of the judicial independence of the courts, with the
growing tendencies of the executive to ignore or nullify decisions of the
courts as well as interfere in the operation of the courts. The courts in
themselves seemed content to make decisions in favour of the government.
Exparte Matovu 1966
Lumu and others v.
Re- Ibrahim 1970
4. It raised the question of the legality of
extra-constitutional changes of government in light of the abrogation of the
1962 constitution and the promulgation of the 1966 and 1967 constitution. This
question was central to the decision in the case of Exparte Matovu where a
challenge was made as to the constitutionality and validity of the 1966
constitution. In the final analysis the question before the courts was whether
the events leading to the 1966 constitutional change in the legal order. The
court referred to the writings of a prominent scholar Prof. Hans Kelsen who had
propounded theories on the extra constitutional changes of a legal order.
Basing on his idea of the constitution as a grund norm,
Kelsen argued that norms derive their validity from the grund norm. He argued
that an extra constitutional change in the legal order occurred in instances
where the change is not contemplated or envisaged by the existing legal order.
The change must in itself result in an efficacious government with authority
over territory and its people.
In the finality, the validity of norms will derive from
the new legal order given that the old one has been legal order continue to
exist, this is because their existence and validity is permitted by the new
legal order.
The phenomenon of extra constitutional changes in the legal
order, has defined a larger part of
i)
Amin
regime by L/N 1/1971
Alfred Kisi v.
ii)
The
UNLF regime and in particular the removal of Prof. Lule ref. to L/N 1 of 1979
considering the case of Lutakome Kayira & others v. Rugumayo and
others 1979 Constitutional Case No.1.
iii)
The
NRM regime and constitutional frame work of
government in light of L/N 1 of 1986 considered in the cases of Ssempebwa
v. A.G constitutional case No. 1 of 1986.
Rwanyarare
v. A.G 1993 Misc. Application No. 1 1994
Article 3 paragraph 1 of 1995
constitution does it outlaw Kelsen theory of extra constitutional changes legal
order government.
Refer to judicial power and
constitutionalism – by Oloka – Onyango.
THE AMIN REGIME OF MILITANT POLITICS AND THE DESTRUCTION
OF FORMAL CONSTITUTIONALISM
The
1966 crisis had propelled Amin to the forefront of
1. Violations of human rights including detentions and the lack
of political freedoms.
2. The existence of a state of emergency throughout the country
since 1969.
3. Corruption, nepotism and tribalism.
The
legal instrument that ushered in Amin’s regime was a proclamation known as Legal
Notice 1/71. It’s significance as with all the subsequent legal notices
1/79 UNLF era and No. 1/86 (NRM period) was the introduction of a new
constitutional legal order in terms of Kelsen theory as well as to give legitimacy
to the new regime. The constitution of
Notice comprised the following
features; it suspended several articles of the 1967
constitution including.
i) Art. 1 on the supremacy of the constitution. In effect Amin
himself became the supreme law and was no longer subject to the constitution.
He did rule by decrees.
ii) Art 3 on the amendment of the constitution by parliament
which could now be done at will by Amin by way of decrees.
iii) Art
63 on the powers of parliament to make laws which would be vested in Amin
through the promulgation of decrees.
iv) Chapter 4 on the executive and the qualifications on election
of the president who came to be designated as head of state by virtue of the Constitution
(Modification) Decree No. 5 of 1971.
v) Chapter 5 on the parliament, its composition and its
legislative powers which would now vest in Amin and a council of ministers by
virtue of The Parliament (Vesting of Powers) Decree No. 8 of 1971.
The immediate period of the
inception of Amin’s regime was characterized by jubilation
in some parts of the country
particularly
the other parts particularly
Lango and Acholi faced purges. Similarly all political
prisoners were released
including Ibingira, Abu Mayanja, Benedicto Kiwanuka and the
majority were elected into the
primary initial civilian government. Nonetheless within a
short -period of time, a clamp
down on the opposition began to take on the character of a
military junta with all the
institutions of government, the executive legislature and
judiciary manned by the
military. Amin introduced a total dictatorship and within a
space of two years he had
completed into turning the country in an absolute military
regime. During the 2 years, the
regime began a clamp down on human rights through the
passing of decrees thus
although Amin had released political prisoners detained by
Obote’s government, the first
act of his regime was to suspend political party activities
which was secured by the Suspension
of Political Party Activities Decree No. 14 of
1971, which provided in part that
“no person was allowed to manage, take part in collect
subscription for, raise funds
or otherwise encourage political party activities. Public
meetings or processions
designed with political motives are banned as are the signs,
symbols, flags, songs,
statements, slogans and names of political parties”. Several other
laws were passed during Amin’s
regime to deal with political descent resulting in further
violation of human rights.
These included;
-
1. The Detention (Prescription of Time Limit) Decree
No. 7 of 1979 which allowed for indefinite detention without trial for
30 days before reasons are given for detention. The decree also gave powers to
arrest and detain individuals to members of the armed forces; the
2. The Newspapers and Publications (Amendment) Decree
No. 35 of 1972 which permitted the minister for information to prohibit
the publication of any newspaper for an indefinite period if satisfied that it
was in public interest. This resulted in the deprivation of the freedom of
expression like the banning of the Ngabo newspaper and subsequent disappearance
of its editor.
3. Military Police (Power of Arrest) Decree, 1971 which gave the
military powers of arrest to civilians and in effect removed its power from the
mainstream police force. By this decree the armed forces and state intelligence
forces such as the state research bureau, anti-smuggling unit could carry out arrests,
summary trials as well as execute civilians which not only eroded the
traditional policing powers but also judicial powers. The implications of this decree
were remarked upon by Russell, C.J in the case of Ephraim Bukenya v. A.G [1972]
H.C.B 87.
In
all these aspects of the creation of a totalitarian regime the most drastic was
the assault upon the judicial arm of government.
This was secured through
the establishment of quasi-judicial organs not traditionally empowered to
exercise judicial power over civilians. This was established by trial by Military
Tribunals Decree No. 12 of 1973.
The implications of the military tribunals decree was to
compromise judicial independence of traditional courts and often resulting in
the denial of the right to fair trial as in most cases individuals were tried
in absentia without legal representation or the right to cross examine
witnesses. A similar quasi-judicial organ was the economic crimes tribunal for the offences of smuggling, hoarding,
extortion etc.
The erosion of judicial power reached its culmination
with the promulgation of Proceedings Against the Government
(Protection) Decree No. 8 of 1972. It was promulgated following the
release of a British citizen on an application of a writ of habeas corpus by
Chief Justice Benedicto Kiwanuka. The decree gave government immunity by
ousting the jurisdiction of courts to grant relief with regards to actions for
injuries resulting from measures taken to protect the public and security and
enforcement of law and order. With the jurisdiction of the courts ousted and
the supremacy of the constitution non-existent, the military government was in
effect beyond the check of the law.
UGANDA
The
period from 1979 can be described as one of a search for constitutional
reconstruction. The search was a result of a government formed in exile during
the Moshi conference whose main participants were drawn from approx. 22 exile
political groups. The main instrument which came to bind the participants
consisted of the minutes to the resolution of the conference. The overall body
that was ushered in after the fall of Amin’s regime was the UNLF which was the
umbrella organization of the various political groups associated with the Moshi
conference.
The
UNLF was made up of distinct organs including:
i) The National Executive Committee with its chairperson as
Prof. Yusuf Lule and vice as Akena P. Ojok.
The National Executive Committee subsequently became the
executive organ of the UNLF government.
ii) The National Consultative Committee which was chaired by
Prof. Edward Rugumayo and his vice Omwony Ojok. The NCC would constitute the
legal organ or the UNLF government.
iii) The Military Commission which was chaired by Paul Muwanga and
his vice Yoweri Museveni.
The UNLF had also established a
cabinet while in exile and upon Amin’s fall in April 1979 the chairman of the
UNLF Prof. Yusuf Lule was sworn in as the 4th president of
On the other hand the legal
notice modified chapter 5 of the 1967 constitution to constitute the National
consultative council as the legislature body.
The government of Prof. Yusuf
Lule was short lived surviving only 68 days. It was faced with internal wrangling and conflicts over ideology and
policy and the last straw came about as a result of dispute over ministerial
appointment. Some members of the UNLF insisted that all presidential
appointments must be ratified by the NCC basing their argument on the premise
that this was in accordance with the minutes and resolutions of the Moshi
conference.
On the other hand, Prof. Lule
argued that the spirit of the Moshi conference had only stipulated that he
governs by the 1967 constitution and that the constitution mentioned nothing
about ratification of presidential appointments. He therefore argued that as
president under the 1967 constitution reinstated as the supreme law of the
land, he was not subordinated to the NCC. He therefore organized a cabinet
reshuffle in which he transferred Paul Muwanga from ministry of internal
affairs to that of labour and replaced him with Andrew Lutakome Kayira. The NCC
revolted and in a motion of no confidence, they voted for his removal and
subsequent replacement as president with Godfrey Binaisa.
The events surrounding Prof.
Lule’s removal as president were to result in the 1st constitutional
case since 1966. This was the case brought by Andrew Lutakome Kayira and others
v. Edward Rugumayo and Others (Constitutional Case No. 1 of 1979.)
The petitioners sought to
challenge the removal of Prof. Lule as president with regard to its lawfulness
under the constitution. The court held;
1. The existing constitutional framework
at the time of Prof. Lule’s removal was the 1967 constitution as modified by L.N
1/79. Since the L.N did not make reference to the resolution of the Moshi
conference. They were not part of the constitution of
2. The 1967 constitution did not prescribe
a procedure for the removal of a president. Therefore the removal of Prof. Lule
as president was done in a manner not contemplated under the constitution and
thus amounted to a coup.
3. An inquiry into the lawfulness of the
removal of Prof Lule as president would invariably raise the question of the
legality of the then existing government of Godfrey Binaisa. And in that regard
Acts and Laws undertaken and enacted by the government. This was a political
question into which the courts could not inquire.
The significance
of Kayira’s case
It tested the
extent to which Kelsen theory as postulated in Exparte Matovu’s case
continued to
exercise influence in politics and governance in
tendency of courts
to refer to this theory in order to secure political continuity.
After Lule’s
removal, Binaisa fell into the same trap as he tried to reshuffle Paul
Muwanga, Museveni
and Oyite Ojok and they removed him and subsequently
placed all
executive powers in the hands of the military commission led by
Muwanga and Museveni.
The military commission created a presidential
commission
comprising of 3 members, 2 of them judges and the 3rd a long-serving
civil servant.
This body was however merely cosmetic as the real executive power
lay with the
military commission which would then put in place a process for the
holding of general
elections and which took place in December 1980.
THE
PERIOD OF THE NATIONAL RESISTANCE MOVEMENT 1986 – 1995
The
period of the NRM can be described as one involving the search for a new model
of constitutionalism. The NRM came to
power on the platform of promising a fundamental change in which it declared that
it would discard itself from the previous modes of government. The guiding
philosophy of the NRM government was to be found in the 10-point programme which outlined the basic elements of its agenda
for political and social economic reconstruction of the country. Amongst this
was the restoration of democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights, elimination
of corruption and creation of a self-sustaining and integrated economy.
The
major constitutional instrument that ushered in the NRM government was Legal
Notice 1/86. It retained Art. 1 of the 1967 constitution on supremacy
of the constitution. Nonetheless it suspended Art. 3 on the amendment of the
constitution. It also suspended Cap. 4 with exceptions of the office of the
president. It also modified Cap. 5 and in particular Art 63 by constituting the
National Resistance Council (NRC) as the legislative organ of the NRM
government. The L.N also contained in its schedule a Code of Conduct to regulate and govern the operations of the NRA
(army). The code of conduct contained basic principles by which the
army was to be guided. In effect, the army was for the first time in
F.E
Ssempebwa v. A.G Constitutional Case No. 1 of 1986 holding – the passing of
legislation was to be by the NRC and not the chairman of NRM.
In
terms of constitutionalism, the NRM government has perhaps had the most
profound influence on the constitutional framework of government since
independence. It is to be said that at its inception in 1986 the NRM was
largely a broad-based government embracing a wide spectrum of political
ideologies and opinions and was intended to be a transitional system of
government. However by 1995, the NRM had narrowed down in terms of its composition
as well as transformed in the manner in which it operated and described itself
as a political system. The major changes introduced by the NRM have entailed
constitutional structures as the conceptual frame work of government. At the
level of institutional structures, the changes included the following.
i) The inception of resistance councils and committees. The RC
system had already been introduced in areas of S. Western Uganda which had come
with the control of the NRA as a rebel group upon coming to power; the RC
system was introduced throughout the country. Of significance, the RC system
transformed the nature and character of local government by breaking the monopoly
of the chief thus for the first time, power at the local level was divested
from a single individual and placed in a committee or council. Further more,
the RC system brought about a new system of participatory democracy at the
grassroots whereby the local people were involved in the election of their
elders from the village to the district levels. Further more, the system also
sought to bring about semblance of separation of powers. With the establishment
of not only the council and committees which largely exercised legislative and
executive powers, but also the resistance council courts which exercised
judicial powers.
Resistance Councils and
Committees (Judicial Powers) Statute No. 1 of 1987.
It may be said that over the
period of time as the NRM entrenched itself, the LC system became more and more
like an institutional mechanism for the ruling power as they were now being
used to advance the causes of the government. Further more, the concept of
participatory democracy was limited to L.C 1 and L.C 2 as the other levels of
the system was then based on elections by way of electoral colleges. In
addition, elections for the L.Cs was primarily based on quenching which did not
effectively promote democratic choice as it gave way to instances of
intimidation particularly the women.
ii) The establishment of the office of the Inspector General of
government referred to as the “Ombudsman” in other countries. This was a
significant establishment since no other government had previously instituted
such an office and it was intended to give effect to the intention of the NRM
government to eradicate corruption as stated in its 10-point programme.
The office of the IGG was designed to check on executive
excesses (abuse of office) and its mandate included prevention of abuse of
office as well as investigation into
allegation of corruption, mal-administration and abuses of human rights.
Nonetheless, an examination of the operation of the office from 1988 when it
was established by the IGG statute up to 1995 when it was transformed into a
constitutional body under the 1995 constitution reveals a number of
shortcomings of the office. First, the IGG was responsible only to the
president and this therefore did not ensure independence of the office in order
to effectively carry out its mandate.
Secondly findings and recommendations of the office were never
made public.
Thirdly, in the years of its
existence, the IGG totally failed to carry out its mandate on the abuse of
office.
iii) Establishment of a
Commission of Inquiry into violations of human rights. This was under the
chairmanship of Justice Oder and it was mandated to inquire
into the violation of human rights since independence up to 1986. In effect,
the commission could not inquire into human right violation under the NRM
government and its report issued in 1994 does not bear reference to human rights
violations in 7 years of the NRM government. In any event, in spite of the
commission’s report, nobody has been prosecuted for committing human right
violations.
iv) The establishment of a Constitutional Commission. This was
established under the
v) The Inception of the
No-party system of government. The NRM government was founded on the
principle of non-partisan politics which stressed the importance of individual
merit as the basis of political governance. The NRM government was therefore
broad-based and as a result at the very outset, political parties were
suspended on the argument that they were largely sectarian and divisive and
were responsible for the political turmoil experienced by
Rwanyarare v A.G constitutional case No. 1
of 1994 the court rejected his petition on grounds that:
1. Limitations on individual rights were
permitted in public interest under the 1967 constitution and that public
interest was manifested in the desire to ensure maximum participation in the
constitution making process.
2. The C.A which was mandated to
promulgate a new constitution was only transitional and in effect the
limitation on the rights of association and assembly was for a limited duration.
It should be recognized that the NRM
government introduced a significant transformation in the gender relations than
any previous government. The question of women’s rights and representation was
accorded as much constitutional and attention.
The government put in place
significant changes in the law in particularly in respect of women
representative in NRC but also affirmative action policies in respect of the
appointment of women to public office and in significantly the addition of 1.5
to women on admission to tertially institutions.
QUESTIONS
1. “The provisions of the 1900 Buganda Agreement on the
territorial and provincial status of the kingdom and on the recognition of the
Kabaka as its nature ruler greatly served to deprive the peoples of
Art. 1 Territorial demarcation i.e jurisdictional extent of the kingdom
i.e taxes, revenue, Kabaka’s court, lost counties led to controversy in
subsequent years. Joseph Kazaraine v Lukiiko.
Illustrate the controversies in events.
Art. 3 Provincial status – kingdom rank in equal standing with other
territories. Effected by the 1902 O.I.C Buganda became part of a big entity yet
previously was an independent entity. Throughout the period of 1900-1962,
Making
1960 memorandum –
Art. 6 Recognition of the Kabaka as the nature ruler indirect rule subject
the authority of the colonial rule. Nature and status of the Kabaka vis-à-vis
col. Authority but how are his powers lost? I.e over his courts i.e with
non-natives, control over appointment of officers i.e chief, ministers of
nominees i.e Art
Loss of revenue to col. Government, merged with that of
other provinces, distribution of land etc. Kabaka’s loss of politicio-military
and socio-economic degrading to the character of the Kabaka i.e gun-salute and
titles-became a paid servant. Yowasi K Paul 1922
Recognition was conditional i.e upon loyalty and
co-operation taken to relate to matters of administration of the kingdom of her
majesty’s government controversy with cohen’s government. Mukwaba’s case.
2. 1902 0-1-C & 1920
Key aspects
-
Constitutional
ideas of individual liberty, freedoms and values. What embraces this
-
Colonial
period
-
Appreciate
constitutional ideas with ref. to the 1902 0-1-C
* Whether there was failure to up hold constitutional ideas
individual liberty, freedoms and values.
* Human rights process three counts; democracy-elections,
separation of powers.
What major features of
O.I.C impacted on these aspect
-
Election
of orgs. of government judiciary, exec. leg. Organs in 1920
-
Shortcomings
of these provisions
-
Failure
to make a distinction between the organs from the beginning
* Admn. Structure and how it affects the liberties of the natures
e.g tax payment, creation of nature
court i.e did it promote nature justice absent of natural justice.
* Habeas corpus – first ref. to rights, the king v Exparte seck 1
deportation – Remoxal of undesirable natives ordinance,
ordinance of 1908
Absence of a right to a fair trial i.e no right to judicial
appeal i.e due process of trial.
Binaisa’s case 1959
Deportation of the Kabaka – use of the deportation undesirable
regulation of 1952.
Freedom of assembly disappears, Membership to Kabaka party
illegal
Does the repugnancy clause secure human rights or is just
emphasis of individualism e.g Gwao ku kilumo Rex v Ankeyo
Tendency towards inequality, natures tried before native
courts.
Trading audience, polices discriminating in education,
reception clause.
3. Busulu – Evunyo controversy and crisis
Busulu-Evunyo controversy, Bataka
crisis, Political and social economic configuration.
What is the Busulu-Evunyo crisis?
Rent tribute to be paid on land in
What
is the Bataka crisis? Cultural leaders involved in organizing strikes riots
etc.
Origins and causes – Art 15 of
Buganda Agreement i.e land provisions and creation of free new land owners and
then charging arbitrary rent, dispossessing Bataka as original land owners and
the attempt to recover that.
Mwenge v Migadde implications,
significance – bostered a cash economy unity of production of cotton and
coffee.
Would be resolved by 1928 by
creation of new laws
-
Abandonment
of a cultural claim and adoption of a new direction reflects
-
Political and socio-economic relations i.e Asian
dominant of trade and commerce trade ordinance of 1939, prohibition of natives
from gaining.
Comments
Post a Comment