KAMPALA -Constitutional Court in Kampala has dismissed an application which was filed by a one Hamzah Kagimu challenging the appointment of National Resistance Movement (NRM) Secretary General, Deputy Secretary General, Treasurer and Deputy treasurer.
In the constitutional petition in which Attorney General was the first respondent, NRM, the second respondent and Yoweri Kaguta Museveni (NRM Party chairman) as the third respondent (represented
Related posts
by Usaam Sebuufu of Kiryowa Kiwanuka and Company advocates), Hamzah who described himself as a rule of law advocate and an NRM member , claimed that the party’s
removal of the election of holders of the above offices, and replacing it with their appointment was unconstitutional.
” a) Articles 11 (5), 12 (5), 13 (5) and 40 (1) of the NRM Constitution are not in contravention of or inconsistent with Article 71 (d) of the constitution, b) The act of appointing the Secretary General, Deputy Secretary General, Treasurer and Deputy Treasurer by the 3rd respondent is not in contravention of or inconsistent with Article 71 (d) of the
Constitution.” ruled court in the unanimous decision of justices Egonda Ntende, Hellen Obura, Kazibwe Kawumi, Asa Mugenyi and Philip Luswata.
Each party was ordered to cater for its own costs
However, i have already dismissed the petition because it does not raise questions of constitutional interpretation nor disclose a cause of action. It was filed without exhausting the internal mechanisms in the Political Parties and organization Act. I cannot dismiss a petition twice.” Ruled justice Asa Mugenyi
Justice Frederick Egonda Ntende, dismissed the objection by the respondents lawyers that the petitioner wrongly included the third respondent President Museveni because under the National Constitution, he cannot sued while still in office apart from Election petitions.
“All of the respondents’ preliminary objections having been overruled save for the objection relating to the petition being untenable against the respondent no.3 on account of presidential immunity. The resultant finding is that the petition is competent against the respondent no.2.” Egonda ruled.
Background
The Petitioner on filing the petition contends that he is an interested party who believes in the rule of law, constitutionalism and political party democracy and has on several occasions been elected to serve in various positions in the 2nd Respondent political organization.
The Petitioner contends that the appointment of the NRM’s Respondent’s Secretary General, Deputy Secretary General, Treasurer and Deputy Treasurer by the 3 Respondent designated as the Chairman of the party instead of their being elected contravene Article 7 (d) of the Constitution.
He also pointed out that the amendment of NRM constitution by removing the election of the stated office holders and replacing it with their appointment was unconstitutional.
ln his affidavit supporting the Petition, the Petitioner states that he communicated his grievance to the party Chairman but got no response.
It is further stated that Article 40 the NRM’s Constitution
violates the rights of members to vote for senior party members in
sensitive positions of the party and their approval by the Central
Executive Committee violates Article 71 (d) of the Constitution.
Court dismisses petition against President Museveni and NRM
Constitutional Court in Kampala has dismissed an application which was filed by a one Hamzah Kagimu challenging the appointment of National Resistance Movement (NRM) Secretary General, Deputy Secretary General, Treasurer and Deputy treasurer.
In the constitutional petition in which Attorney General was the first respondent, NRM, the second respondent and Yoweri Kaguta Museveni (NRM Party chairman) as the third respondent (represented by Usaam Sebuufu of Kiryowa Kiwanuka and Company advocates), Hamzah who described himself as a rule of law advocate and an NRM member , claimed that the party’s removal of the election of holders of the above offices, and replacing it with their appointment was unconstitutional.
“ a) Articles 11 (5), 12 (5), 13 (5) and 40 (1) of the NRM Constitution are not in contravention of or inconsistent with Article 71 (d) of the constitution, b) The act of appointing the Secretary General, Deputy Secretary General, Treasurer and Deputy Treasurer by the 3rd respondent is not in contravention of or inconsistent with Article 71 (d) of the Constitution.” Ruled court in the unanimous decision of justices Egonda Ntende, Hellen Obura, Kazibwe Kawumi, Asa Mugenyi and Philip Luswata.
Each party was ordered to cater for its own costs
However, I have already dismissed the petition because it does not raise questions of constitutional interpretation nor disclose a cause of action. It was filed without exhausting the internal mechanisms in the Political Parties and organization Act. I cannot dismiss a petition twice.” Ruled justice Asa Mugenyi
Justice Frederick Egonda Ntende, dismissed the objection by the respondents lawyers that the petitioner wrongly included the third respondent President Museveni because under the National Constitution, he cannot sued while still in office apart from Election petitions.
“All of the respondents’ preliminary objections having been overruled save for the objection relating to the petition being untenable against the respondent no.3 on account of presidential immunity. The resultant finding is that the petition is competent against the respondent no.2.” Egonda ruled.
Background
The Petitioner on filing the petition contends that he is an interested party who believes in the rule
Of law, constitutionalism and political party democracy and has on several occasions been elected to serve in various positions in the 2nd Respondent political organization.
The Petitioner contends that the appointment of the NRM’s Respondent’s Secretary General, Deputy Secretary General, Treasurer and Deputy Treasurer by the 3rd Respondent designated as the Chairman of the party instead of their being elected contravene Article 7 (d) of the Constitution.
He also pointed out that the amendment of NRM constitution by removing the election of the stated office holders and replacing it with their appointment was unconstitutional.
Ln his affidavit supporting the Petition, the Petitioner states that he communicated his grievance to the party Chairman but got no response.
It Is further stated that Article 40 the NRM’s Constitution violates the rights of members to vote for senior party members in sensitive positions of the party and their approval by the Central Executive Committee violates Article 71 (d) of the Constitution.
