CCG PETITION AGAINST THE RE-APPOINTMENT OF JUSTICE BENJAMIN ODOKI AS CJ OF UGANDA

                                                                     

16^th August 2013

The Speaker of Parliament

Parliament of the Republic of Uganda

Kampala

Rt. Hon Speaker of Parliament,

PETITION ABOUT THE RE-APPOINTMENT OF HON JUSTICE BENJAMIN ODOKI AS THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF UGANDA

Reference is made to the President’s letter addressed to you, dated 9^th August 2013, re- appointing Hon Justice Benjamin Odoki as the Chief Justice of Uganda for the next 2 years.

This letter quotes the powers vested in the President in accordance with Articles 142 (1), 143 and 253 of the Constitution.

I would like to draw your attention to the following anomalies:

1. Article 142 (1) only gives powers to the President to appoint a Chief Justice based on the advice of the Judicial Service Commission. In this particular incidence, there was no advice from the Judicial Service Commission for the re-appointment of Hon Justice Benjamin Odoki. The Judicial Service Commission only recommended Justices Bart Katureebe, Yorokamu Bawmine and Peter Kabatsi to the President for possible appointment to the post of the Chief Justice of Uganda.
2. Article 253 (1) of the Constitution states that “where any person has vacated office established by this Constitution, that person may, if qualified, again be appointed or elected to hold that office…..”

Madam Speaker, OUR emphasis on this article is the phrasing “IF QUALIFIED” and we would like to draw your attention to Article 144 of the Constitution which specifies out the tenure of office of judicial officers; specifically 144 (1) (a) which limits the age of the Chief Justice to 70 years and below. Hon Justice Benjamin Odoki is above 70 years of age and is not qualified to hold the office of the Chief Justice of Uganda.

3. Under Article 79 of the Constitution, Parliament is charged with the duty of protecting the Constitution and promoting democratic good governance in Uganda. Also Article 1 of the Constitution vests all power to people and this power can only be exercised by the people through their elected representatives, which is the Members of Parliament, in our case.

Madam Speaker, the people of Uganda are looking up to you to uphold and protect the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as well as promote constitutionalism and good governance.

I wish, therefore, to call upon you and the Members of the Appointments Committee of Parliament, to defer the approval of Hon Justice Benjamin Odoki because it violates the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, as amended.

Yours Sincerely,

Okwiri Rabwoni

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

cc: All Members of the Appointments Committee of Parliament

CSO PERSPECTIVES ON THE PUBLIC ORDER MANAGEMENT BILL

CSO’S PERSPECTIVES ON THE PUBLIC ORDER MANAGEMENT BILL

 

PRESS RELEASE

 As the CSO Fraternity, we take cognizance of the efforts that the Uganda Government and more particularly the Uganda Police Force have undertaken to protect the Citizens of Uganda and their property as well as their unwavering commitment to the prevention and detection of crime of any kind. The above notwithstanding, while we all strife for a safer world to live in, the means of combating and prevention of crime and more specifically public (dis) order should be in consonance with the human rights standards universally acceptable, binding and domestically provided for under the Uganda Constitution of 1995. 

 As CSO in Uganda, we note with great concerned and we reiterate our earlier position that the Public Order Management Bill if passed in its current form infringes greatly on a number of human rights and freedoms of Uganda including the following:

 1. By legislating to control as opposed to democratic regulation of public assemblies/ meetings that focus on the efficacy of government and its agencies and political organs, the Bill infringes on the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression, thought and belief, assembly, association and demonstration.

 

2. The Bill under clause 7 and 8 undermines the rule of law, constitutionalism and independence of the judiciary by seeking to revive Section 32 of the Police Act that sought to ‘prohibit’ rather than ‘regulate’ public assemblies which was held unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court in Muwanga Kivumbi v. Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 9/05). Art. 92 of the Constitution forbids parliament from passing any law to alter the decision of court.

 3. The Bill gives immense discretionary powers of the authorized police officer hence susceptible to abuse under clause 4,5, 7 and 8. There under, there is no established mechanism that can or should be followed by the police in exercising his power of ‘regulation, or ‘directing’. It’s all upon the police’s will which leaves room for serious ramifications for the rule of law and human rights.

 4. The Bill is intimidating, deterrent, burdensome and fear prone legislation: threatening and shrinking the public space. The Bill under Clause 6 is an infringement on the right to political participation as it seeks to not only control the public gatherings but also what  is discuss therein which includes principles, policy, actions or failure of any government; political party or political organization, whether or not-that party of organization is registered under any applicable law.

 5. The Bill under Clause 15 gives superfluous discretionary powers of the Minister as a lone individual to declare that in any particular area in Uganda, it is unlawful for any person to convene a public meeting if in his opinion it is desirable in interest of public tranquility. This can be abused when and if left to the will of an individual or the executive without any supervision for checks and balances.

 6. The inclusion of use of fire arms without strict safeguards under Clause 11 during public assemblies is unwarranted. Indeed, the provision is generally below the standards set in the Police Act which introduces safeguards such as imploring the officer to only resort to fire arms only after exhaustion of other possible ways of fulfilling calming a situation.

 7. The Bill contains erroneous provision for criminal liability to organizers instead of perpetrators for criminal acts committed by the participants attending the public meeting under Clause 12 of the Bill the organizers shall compensate any party that may suffer loss or damage from any fall out of the public meeting and ensure that statements made to the media and public do not conflict with any existing laws of Uganda. The section is misconceived, proposed in bad faith, redundant and defeats legal maxims of personal criminal liability upon which a functional legal framework is constructed.

 Consequently, CSO fraternity calls upon the PARLIAMENT of Uganda:

 ·        The Bill in its current state is an affront to human rights of all citizens enshrined under Chapter 4 of Uganda’s 1995 Constitution.

·        The law seems to be dealing with symptomatic offshoots of gatherings gone wrong but does not address the underlying causes.  Legislation against discontent can deliver a semblance of stability but only for a short time. Long-lasting citizenry-oriented stability is hinged on provision of functional social and public amnesties.

·        The main focus of the Bill should be targeted towards the building of an independent monitoring, review and evaluation of public assemblies’ mechanism. This should be aimed at evaluating the standards used by the police in the policing of demonstrations with the sole aim of informing the transformation process of the police.

·        The POM Bill as it stands now is still wanting and cannot be an enabling piece of legislation as Uganda strives to achieve its democratization aspirations of liberty, equality, rule of law and constitutionalism.