Constitutional Petition No. 14 of 2012 — Majabi Richard v Attorney General
Brief Facts
Mafabi Richard filed a constitutional petition challenging certain acts of the state as being inconsistent with the 1995 Constitution of Uganda.
He argued that specific actions and legal provisions violated his constitutional rights and freedoms.
The Attorney General opposed the petition, raising preliminary objections regarding the competence of the petition, jurisdiction of the Court, and whether the petition disclosed any cause for constitutional interpretation.
Issues
Whether the petition raised questions that required constitutional interpretation under Article 137(3) of the Constitution.
Whether the petition was properly supported by evidence and filed within the time limits prescribed by law.
Whether the challenged acts and provisions were inconsistent with or in contravention of the Constitution.
Holding
The Constitutional Court held that for it to assume jurisdiction, a petition must clearly show that an Act of Parliament, a law, or an act/omission by a person or authority is inconsistent with the Constitution.
The Court found that only some of the matters raised by Mafabi Richard were fit for interpretation under Article 137(3). Other claims were dismissed as speculative, incompetent, or outside the Court’s jurisdiction.
The petition was therefore allowed to proceed only on the substantive constitutional questions it disclosed, while the rest were struck out