Kerry Howard Mwesigwa.
KAMPALA, December 01, 2023 | The Court of Appeal of Uganda has breathed new life into the case challenging the election of nine members to the East African Legislative Assembly (EALA) from Uganda. The appellate court overturned the High Court’s earlier dismissal, ordering a fresh trial and setting a six-month timeline for its determination.
The ruling comes as a beacon of hope for four petitioners who allege that the EALA election, held on February 8, 2023, was marred by irregularities and unconstitutional practices. The candidates who emerged victorious include prominent figures like Rose Akol Okullu, Mary Mugyenyi, and Fred Mukasa Mbidde.
The petitioners, namely Ingrid Turinawe, Margaret Zziwa Nantongo, Jacqueline Amongin, and James Kakooza, raised concerns about the fairness of the election process, citing alleged interference by the Speaker of the Parliament of Uganda, Anita Among. They further claimed instances of bribery, intimidation, and violence during the election.
Initially dismissed by the High Court on March 21, 2023, for lack of jurisdiction, the case faced a setback as the High Court deemed it to fall under the purview of the East African Court of Justice (EACJ). The High Court cited the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community, emphasizing the exclusive jurisdiction of the EACJ over EALA election matters.
However, the Court of Appeal unanimously disagreed with this interpretation, asserting that the High Court indeed had jurisdiction to hear the case. The appellate court emphasized the petitioners’ right to access justice within their own country, as the EALA election was governed by Ugandan laws.
Crucially, the Court of Appeal acknowledged the substantial issues raised by the petitioners, including the role of the Speaker, candidate conduct, and the overall fairness of the election. Rejecting the argument of exclusive EACJ jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal highlighted the absence of an explicit ousting of national court jurisdiction in the East African Community Treaty.
Drawing a distinction from the precedent set in the case of Abubakar vs Secretary General of the EAC and Others, the Court of Appeal deemed the present situation to involve a different legal framework and factual scenario. In a decisive move, the Court of Appeal directed the High Court to expedite the hearing, with a mandate to conclude the case within six months from the date of the judgment. The parties involved were also instructed to bear their own costs of the appeal.
