MPs should not have snubbed meeting with Chief Justice

On Saturday, this newspaper run a story ‘MPs snub meeting Chief Justice over being called ‘villagers’”. The MPs allegedly reacted to the expression of Justice Keneth Kakuru referring to MPs as “villagers”, who are voted and have to learn and study Kampala City first, to justify their term extension of more two years.

The clash among the arms of government often happens not only in developed democracies. However, the fundamental issue is about how each arm responds when knocked by the other. Not so long ago, a court order was called stupid in Parliament and some MPs clapped in joy. The legal fraternity, in principle, disagreed with the remarks given the gravity of the abuse.

In Wild Life Lodges Ltd vs County Council of Narok and anor, in relation to what Parliament called “stupid court orders”, court held that: “The whole purpose of litigation as a process of judicial administration is lost if court orders are not complied with.

A party that knows of an order whether null and void, regular or irregular cannot be permitted to disobey it.” Therefore, Parliament and the cheer leaders did not have a justification for castigating the “stupid order.”

The underlying principle here is separation of powers and checks and balances, which entails, among many other principles, the respect of the law and of other organs of government in execution of their constitutional duties. Whether the Justice was caught out of context or not can be debated.

However, Parliament has a constitutional obligation under Article 128(3) to accord courts such assistance as may be required to ensure the effectiveness of the court. One such role is carrying out effective budgetary allocation, which was the subject matter for the “snubbed meeting”.

The Parliamentary Legal Affairs Committee’s act or omission not to meet the head of the Judiciary over the alleged remarks by Justice Kakuru is contrary to the principle of Judicial independence under Article 128(2) since in my view, it amounts to interference in the affairs of court. Parliament seems to be sending a signal that it can punish the Judiciary by refusing to handle its issues.

In a bid to keep harmony among the three arms, the principle of rule of law should be the cardinal standard for their relationship rather rule by law; what Lady Justice Lydia Mugambe calls the ‘proverbial big elephant’ in the case of Lukwago vs Attorney General & 3 Ors (Application no. 94 of 2014) [2014]ughccd 47.

And she emphasises “It should have no place in the room if the constitutional principles of good governance, democracy and respect for human rights are [to be] adhered to. It must be tamed by all means and it is the duty of all Ugandans, as mandated by the Constitution, to jealously protect and respect the rule of law. It is against this backdrop that I appeal to MPs to restrain themselves from any acts or omission that undermines the sanctity of the Judiciary.

If Parliament feels offended by Justice Kakuru’s remarks, there are other acceptable measures that it can take.
Morgan Apollo Muhindo,
[email protected]