Constitutional Petition No. 8 of 1999 – Dr. James Rwanyarare vs Attorney General
Brief Facts
The petitioners, members of the Uganda Peoples Congress (UPC), challenged the constitutionality of the Movement system of governance (then in force).
They argued that the system where political parties were restricted from carrying out many of their normal activities violated several constitutional provisions, especially Articles 20, 21, 29, and 75 of the 1995 Constitution, which protect fundamental rights, freedoms, and prohibit one-party rule.
They asked the Constitutional Court to declare the Movement system inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore null and void.
Issues
Whether the Movement political system established under Article 269 of the Constitution was inconsistent with and in contravention of Articles 20, 21, 29, and 75 of the Constitution.
Whether restrictions placed on political parties under Article 269 were unconstitutional.
Whether the petitioners were entitled to the remedies sought (declarations and costs).
Holding
The Constitutional Court dismissed the petition.
It held that the Movement system was a constitutionally recognised political system under the 1995 Constitution (see Articles 69–75), and therefore could not be said to be inconsistent with the Constitution itself.
The restrictions on political parties under Article 269 were valid, since they were expressly provided for by the Constitution.
The Court emphasized that Article 75, which prohibits a one-party state, was not violated, because the Movement system was not equivalent to a one-party system but rather a “no-party” system approved by the people in the 1995 Constitution.
Petition was accordingly dismissed with costs.