Uganda’s constitutional court finds 16 high court two-year, acting appointments unconstitutional

9 December 2022 · Carmel Rickard

When Uganda’s judicial service commission (JSC) announced earlier this year, that 16 high court judges had been appointed – for a two-year acting stint – it prompted two legal academics to bring a petition challenging the constitutionality of these appointments. Now the country’s constitutional court has given its decision: by four to one, the court ruled that the appointments were unconstitutional, and gave the JSC six months to rectify the situation.

Read judgment

Two lecturers at Makerere University law school have won what they will surely regard as a significant victory for constitutionalism in the appointment of judges. Busingye Kabumba and Andrew Karamagi brought their application in reaction to an announcement by the judicial service commission (JSC), issued in May, to the effect that 16 high court judges had been appointed in an acting capacity for a two-year term.

They took their concerns to court, arguing that the appointment contravened the notion of security of tenure for judicial officers, along with infringements of various constitutional provisions.

They argued that, under the disputed arrangement, such judges would ‘essentially serve at the mercy of the JSC and appointing authority, with absolutely no guarantee of re-appointment or confirmation, ‘and thus lack the security of tenure enjoyed by judicial officers … appointed on permanent basis.’

Abuse

What they asked for was a declaration that the advice of the JSC, in so far as it guided the president of Uganda to make acting appointments for two years, was unconstitutional. They also wanted the act of the president in making the appointment of judges for two years to be declared unconstitutional.

As is often the case, the respondent (the attorney general) said the petition was misconceived, premature and ‘an abuse of court process’.

Interestingly, the Ugandan courts have already had to deal with a somewhat similar case: at the time, the Labour Disputes Act stipulated that the term of office of judges of the industrial court was limited to five years. That provision was declared unconstitutional.

Democratic

Justice Monica Mugenyi wrote the lead decision, with the support of three colleagues. A fifth member of the constitutional court, Justice Madrama Izana, however, disagreed.

Justice Mugenyi referred in her decision to a number of significant authorities on the terms and conditions that should operate in respect of judicial appointments in a democratic tradition.

She quoted the International Bar Association’s minimum standards of judicial independence, decisions of the East African Court of Justice, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, the UN’s Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the treaty that established the East African Community, among others.

Probationary

She said it seemed to her that the impugned appointments were like probationary appointments, ‘tagged to satisfactory performance [during] the … two-year period before a substantive appointment can be made.’

However, she added, ‘I find no provision whatsoever in the constitution for the appointment of judges on such probationary terms’.

The constitution, dealing with the role of the JSC in advising the president on appointment, referred to people who would ‘hold or act’ in judicial office. What was the difference between these?

Inconceivable

She said it was inconceivable that the framers of the constitution wanted two ‘parallel pathways’ for the first-time appointment of judges, one under Article 142 (1) that would be subject to parliamentary approval and the other, under Article 142 (2) that was not subject to this approval. More likely, she said, was that the latter was exclusively applicable to serving or retired judges, already appointed to the judiciary via parliamentary approval, while ‘fresh recruitment or appointment of judges would be subject to parliamentary approval under Article 142 (1)’ thus conferring substantive appointment on appointees.

Justice Mugenyi said she concluded that reference to ‘act in’ was relevant to the appointment of a judge, already serving as such, to serve, temporarily, in the place of a substantive judge.

Explicit

Her analysis of the text led her to the view that ‘the provision for acting judges in those constitutional provisions is only available to serving or retired judges.’

All the principles, authorities and decisions she quoted called for judges’ tenure of office ‘to be explicitly reduced into law.’

‘This is certainly in tandem with the renowned principle of legal certainty,’ she added. There was nothing permitting probationary appointments in Ugandan law, and the designation of the 16 newly-appointment judges as acting members of the judiciary was unconstitutional.

Urgency

What should be done about the situation?

Given that the judges had ‘since taken judicial oath and assumed office’, the constitutional court’s decision that the JSC’s actions were unconstitutional does not make any decision of the 16, invalid. ‘It simply illuminates the need by the JSC to regularise their appointments as a matter of urgency to bring them in conformity with the constitution, and forestalls appointments in acting capacity for freshly recruited judges.’

She therefore concluded that the appointment of the 16 judges, subject to an acting term of two years, was unconstitutional. Further, the JSC was directed to do what was necessary ‘to regularise the appointment of the affected 16 judges into substantive appointments within six months’ of her judgment.

Abandoned

One of the other decisions on the matter, this time by Fredrick Egonda-Ntende, who agreed with the outcome proposed by Justice Mugenyi, pointed out that the previous constitution permitted a system under which acting appointments could be made, and then, after ‘six months or so’, the acting judges could be appointed with tenure. It was a system that permitted probationary appointments.

But that system of initially appointing high court judges as acting judges, and then appointing them substantively, had been ‘abandoned’ for more than 25 years ‘until these impugned appointments.

Performance evaluation

Justice Egonda-Ntende pointed out that, while the case before them was being argued, the JSC put out an advertisement for 11 high court positions. They were all said to be specifically appointed to act for two years before being appointed in a substantive capacity ‘upon performance evaluation being conducted.’

It seemed that the JSC was creating terms and conditions of employment that ‘are not available in the constitution or any Act of parliament,’ said the judge. ‘It is seeking to do so by agreement. Does the JSC have such constitutional authority? I would think not.’

Carmel Rickard

About the author

Recent articles by Carmel Rickard

‘No justification for the unjustifiable’: Lesotho’s ombud slams grand-scale torture, assault in Maseru prison

22 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Lesotho’s national ombud, Tlotliso Angelina Polaki, has issued a scathing report on massive-scale torture and assaults that took place in Maseru’s central correctional institution during December 2023, leaving about 95% of the inmates of the prison injured, one dead and one who is now wheelchair-bound and will never walk again.

Major court decision on image rights benefits Ugandan soccer players

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Members of Uganda’s national soccer team from the period around 2007/8 have just been awarded a payout against MTN Uganda by the commercial court. The telecom giant had a year-long contract with Proline, the players’ originating development soccer club, allowing it to use the players’ images for advertising. But MTN had continued to use their images even after that contract expired on the basis that it had a sponsorship agreement with Fufa, soccer’s governing body in Uganda. The players then challenged MTN in court, through Proline, and have now won a significant damages award. But the judgment exposed some serious flaws in the way that Fufa has approached the question of using the image rights of its senior players, and the court commented that this is a ‘case study’ for why Fufa needs to sort out its contractual arrangements with senior players.

Executive interference in Ugandan court decisions continues – this time by the justice minister

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Uganda’s minister of justice, Norbert Mao, has taken a leaf straight from the book of the country’s president, Yoweri Museveni. This week, the minister wrote to the principal judge of the Ugandan high court, asking that the judge directly intervene in a matter that has been brought to his attention by an MP on behalf of a constituent. Mao asked for the ‘immediate administrative intervention’ in the matter by the principal judge. Earlier this year, Museveni wrote a similar letter to the chief justice of Uganda, also requesting intervention in a matter, and the CJ later indicated that this was not the first time it had happened.

Is rape by family members treated too lightly by the law?

19 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

The high court has sent the case of a Malawian teenager, charged with raping his 89-year-old grandmother, back to the magistrate’s court for a possible re-trial because the court had wrongly prosecuted a case of rape instead of incest. If convicted in a re-trial, however, Malawi’s incest law could see the accused sentenced to a mere five years. Malawi’s penal code provides for a significant difference between the sentence to be imposed when a man rapes a close family member, and in a case where the two are not related. When they are unrelated, the code provides that a rape offender ‘shall be liable to be punished with death or with imprisonment for life’ (However, Malawi has had what amounts to a moratorium on carrying out the death penalty since 1992.) By contrast, ‘incest by males’, is categorised in the code as a ‘felony’, and anyone convicted ‘shall be liable for imprisonment for five years’. There is an exception: if it is proved ‘that the female person is under the age of 16, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment for life’.

Prominent SA advocates lose battle over conviction in Namibian courts for working without a permit, misleading immigration officials

6 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Two prominent South African advocates have just lost their last hope of squashing their convictions in the Namibian courts. Johannesburg advocates, Mike Hellens SC and Dawie Joubert SC, had been found guilty on two counts, first, working as legal practitioners without an employment permit, and second, giving false or misleading information to immigration officers when they entered the country in 2019. Though they had gone to Namibia to appear in court in a bail application, they told the immigration officials they were there for a ‘visit’ and for a ‘meeting’. Both appealed against their conviction but they had also asked for a judicial review of the decision. In the high court they lost their appeal but won on the review. The outcome in both matters were taken to the apex supreme court for a final word. In December 2023, they lost their appeal at the supreme court. What would that same court say when the state appealed against the review finding? The supreme court has now given its answer: it found the review, that had favoured Hellens and Joubert, was wrongly decided, and set it aside, awarding costs against the two advocates in both the high court and the supreme court.