Court dismisses application seeking to halt issuance of EAC e-passports

High Court has dismissed an application in which an organisation had sued government in a bid to halt the issuance of the EAC e-passports.
Centre for Constitutional Governance (CCG) and Mr Michael Aboneka, a lawyer, in their application had claimed that the whole process was illegal with no clear law under which the Ministry is proceeding to recall Ugandan passports and issue out the East African passports to Ugandan citizens.
However Justice Musa Ssekaana dismissed their application with costs stating that it was incompetently put before the court.
The judge noted that the applicants (CCG and Mr Aboneka) had not cited any infringement of any right or freedom guaranteed under the Constitution as the basis of filing the application.
"The applicant should have filed an application for judicial review challenging that decision of the Minister of Internal Affairs or the National Citizenship and Immigration Board, rather than filing an application for enforcement of rights where no single right is mentioned or Article of the Constitution is cited," the judge ruled.
Court observed that the applicants had brought their application as a public interest litigation under Article 50 which provides for enforcement of freedom of rights.
Justice Ssekaana explained that the Black's law dictionary 8th edition defines public interest litigation as "the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection" or something in which the public as a whole has a stake.
The judge further explained that a matter under public interest litigation must require a legal remedy and be of public interest which raises matters of broad public concern, has an impact on disadvantaged or marginalised groups, affects a significant numbers of people not just the individual and must be a legal matter which requires addressing for the common good.
"The courts should restrict the free flow of cases in the name of public interest litigation since it is time consuming and mainly indulges courts in taking administrative and executive functions instead of dispensing with justice which is their primary role," Justice Ssekaana ruled.
"Public interest litigation should not be used for personal or political gains or for mere publicity or for mere oblique reasons. Such interest matters should be done by persons having expert knowledge in the field after making proper research especially if it is concerned with issues of Constitutional law," he added.
The judge then warned that courts should be careful in recognising public interest and the judicial officer must determine whether the applicant is a genuine public interest litigant and is not acting malafide (in bad faith) for personal gain, private profit or for political or other oblique considerations.
Justice Ssekaana ruled that he found the applicants’ submissions very confused and unpolished on what they sought from the court as an infringement of rights and freedoms. Once they brought themselves under the purview of infringement of rights and freedoms, he said, they had a duty to clearly state in the pleadings and affidavits the exact rights they were challenging.