Court blocks ULS from appointing representatives in govt bodies without elections

Court has blocked the Uganda Law Society (ULS) council from appointing and or nominating its representatives on government statutory bodies without following the due process of involving all the members.
 
Justice Boniface Wamala of the High Court ruled that the actions of the council to nominate or appoint society representatives in a manner other than that provided for under the law was in breach of the ULS Act.
 
"To my finding, the council acted intra vires to its powers. The allegation by the respondent (ULS) that the regulations or part thereof were made ultra vires or are inconsistent with the Act is , therefore, not made out is rejected," Justice Wamala ruled.
 
According to the court, the position of society representative under the ULS Act and Elections Regulations is elective and therefore election is not by way of nomination or appointment by the council but has to be in accordance with the Elections Regulations.
 
The court decision followed a case in which Lawyer Steven Kalali sued the ULS on accusations of breaching the constitution, ULS Act as well as the Human Rights and Freedom Rules.
 
He successfully argued that the ULS council of appointing its representatives to various bodies without the members' involvement and or participation or consent is a violation of the democratic principles of good governance.
 
Court heard that all representative office bearers under the capacity of representatives are holding the same illegally without the members’ approval.
 
The judge also reasoned that the justifications put forward by ULS pointing to the practical difficulties in implementation of that part of the regulations cannot be reason for different construction of the Act.
 
"... Rather they can form a ground to justify amendment of the regulations which power is vested in the council with the approval of the general assembly of the society by way of a special resolution," Justice Wamala reasoned.
 
 
Court reasoned that the provision under Section 25(h) of the ULS Act is not meant to be exhaustive, which explains why Parliament included the rather general provision for the ULS council to make provisions in respect of all elective offices.
 
However, the court ruled that Mr Kalali did not present any evidence to show any infringement of his right to freedom of expression, thought or conscience.
 

“On the case before the Court, the facts do not disclose any infringement of the Applicant’s right to free expression or opinion. There is evidence that the Applicant has always aired out his views by petitions and letters and the same have been considered and responded to. There is evidence that an extra ordinary general meeting of the Respondent was convened to discuss, among others, matters raised by the Applicant. I do not find from the evidence any instance of infringement of the Applicant’s right to freedom of expression, thought or conscience,” Justice Wamala held.
Adding…“The only order available to the Applicant and which I accordingly issue is an order of a permanent injunction restraining the Respondent’s Council from any further breach of the Act and the Elections Regulations regarding the election of the Society representatives.”

According to the court documents, ULS being a body of professionals and custodian of the law are bound to uphold and follow principles of rule of law which they have since violated belatedly without justification.
The documents further state that ULS's representatives on the various statutory bodies to wit senior council Ms Ruth Sebatindira,  Ms Norah Matovu on Judicial Service  Commission as well as others on the other bodies have been on or held offices for many years without according other members of the society chance to per take the same which clearly outlaws democratic principles of good governance and rule of law or transparency/ accountability.

Mr Kalali also noted that in the democratic society,  representatives of anybody or association portray leaders voted or nominated with consent and or approval of the respective class they represent to whom they get the mandate and account too which is not the case herein.
[email protected]