The Constitutional Court has ruled that Ugandans have no constitutional right to recall Members of Parliament (MPs) under the current multiparty political system, dismissing a petition that sought to reinstate the right of recall for voters.
In a unanimous judgment delivered by Justice Musa Ssekaana, the court upheld the validity of Article 84(7) of the Constitution and Section 85(2) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, which restrict the right of recall to the defunct Movement political system.
Other justices are: Hellen Obura, Margaret Tibulya, Moses Kazibwe Kawumi and Asa Mugenyi.
‘The right to recall a Member of Parliament shall only exist where the movement political system is in operation,’ the justices stated, affirming the constitutional position.
The petition filed by Shamil Atabua Letia, challenged Section 21 of the Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 2005, which introduced Article 84(7) and Section 85(2). Letia argued that the amendment was unconstitutional because it deprived Ugandans of a fundamental democratic right to hold their elected leaders accountable through recall.
He claimed that the 2005 constitutional amendment unjustifiably reverses or abridges universally accepted democratic principles by barring Ugandans from exercising their right of recall of elected Members of Parliament during the multiparty dispensation.
Letia further argued that the recall right was integral to Uganda’s constitutional design as adopted by citizens during the 1995 Constitution-making process. He asserted that Ugandans, in the 2005 referendum that reintroduced multiparty politics, did not surrender their right to recall.
However, the Attorney General, represented by Senior State Attorney John Natuhwera, defended the amendment as constitutional, asserting that the recall mechanism was tied specifically to the Movement system of government, where MPs were elected on individual merit rather than through party sponsorship.
The respondent submitted that ‘the Constitution being a living document. adapts to the progress in societal norms and values,’ adding that the amendment was intended ‘to clarify what the multiparty political system chosen by the people of Uganda entails.’
The Attorney General also argued that the petition was res judicata, claiming that similar issues had been determined in previous cases such as Nobert Mao vs Attorney General and Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General.
However, Justice Ssekaana rejected the argument, holding that ‘the issue of res judicata is devoid of any merit,’ as none of the cited cases had addressed Article 84(7) directly. The court thus proceeded to rule on the constitutional questions raised.
In his detailed judgment, Justice Ssekaana emphasised that Parliament has the constitutional power to amend the Constitution by way of addition, variation, or repeal, provided that the proper procedures are followed.
He stated that the 2005 amendment was validly enacted under Article 259 of the Constitution and reflected the realities of Uganda’s transition from the Movement to a multiparty system of governance.
‘At its promulgation, the Constitution was operating under a Movement System of Government and it was clearly providing for a right of recall of Members of Parliament. This constitutional instrument of recall had to be amended to address the new changes,’ the judge explained.
The court found that the recall mechanism was incompatible with party-based politics, noting that the direct right of recall could no longer be exercised in the new political dispensation where members stand for election under their parties.
The court reasoned that under the multiparty system, accountability of MPs should be managed internally within political parties, not directly through voter recall.
‘The political parties should retain the measure and control of their Members of Parliament who were voted into office by virtue of the connection and relations with such political party. It should be up to the political party to find means and ways of removing its members,’ court held.
On the issue of alleged discrimination, the court held that the amendment was not discriminatory, explaining that mere differential or inequality of treatment does not per se amount to discrimination.
‘The differential treatment or inequality of treatment about the right to recall a Member of Parliament under the Movement political system and Multiparty political system is reasonably justified due to the uniqueness of the two political systems,’ Justice Ssekaana ruled.
He concluded that the petitioner had failed to discharge his burden to prove the unconstitutionality of Article 84(7) and dismissed the petition without costs.
‘The Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 2005, which removed the right of recall of Members of Parliament under a multiparty political system, was informed by the change of the political system and was well guided by the national objectives and directive principles of state policy,’ the judgment stated.
The decision reaffirms that Ugandan voters cannot petition to remove MPs before the end of their five-year term, leaving accountability mechanisms to internal party processes and the next general election.