Contents

1. Summary
   1. Facts
   2. Holding
2. Comment
3. Further resources
4. Decision

Summary

Legal Brains Trust petitioned against Parliament's rule 165(2), claiming it violated constitutional rights to transparency, freedom of expression, and access to information. The Attorney General argued the rule promoted accountability and didn't contravene the constitution. The court dismissed the petition, finding the rule justifiable for protecting appointees' privacy.

Facts

This constitutional petition was brought under Article 137 (3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995, concerning rule 153(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Uganda, 2012, now rule 165 (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the 11th Parliament.

Legal Brains Trust (LBT) Limited, Simon Kaggwa Njala, and Sulaiman Kakaire filed a petition alleging that rule 165(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Uganda is inconsistent with Articles 8A (1), 79 (3), 29 (1) (a), 38 (1), 41 (1), and 43 (2) (c) of the Constitution.

The petitioners contended that the impugned rule does not promote transparency and accountability, thus contravening Article 8A (1) of the Constitution.

They argued that the rule impedes democratic governance by denying the public and press the opportunity to observe and participate in the decision-making process of Parliament, contrary to Article 79 (3). The petitioners claimed the rule prohibits the press and public from accessing the proceedings of the Appointments Committee, hindering freedom of expression, including freedom of the press, contrary to Article 29 (1) (a).

They asserted that the rule conceals the process of vetting high-ranking public officials, disempowering the public from scrutinising the appointment of individuals who will make decisions affecting their rights, contrary to Article 38 (1).

The petitioners argued that the rule fails to restrict its application to situations where publicity of proceedings may prejudice state security, sovereignty, or the right to privacy, disproportionately abridging the citizen's right to access information, inconsistent with Article 41 (1).

They contended that the rule fails to ensure that proceedings of the Appointments Committee are generally open to the public and press, unjustifiably restricting access in a free and democratic society, inconsistent with Article 43 (2) (c).

The petitioners sought a declaration that rule 165 (2) is inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore null and void. They also sought orders for access to transcripts, audio, video, and audio-visual recordings of the Appointments Committee proceedings, a permanent injunction barring Parliament from enforcing the rule, and an order for the respondent to pay the costs of the petition.

The Attorney General opposed the petition, stating it was bad in law, frivolous, prolix, and raised no question as to the interpretation of the Constitution.

The respondent argued that the impugned rule promotes transparency and accountability by providing the public with timely, accessible, and accurate information and does not contravene Article 8A (1) of the Constitution.

The respondent concluded that the petitioners were not entitled to the declarations and orders sought and that the petition should be dismissed with costs.