Court says review of media disciplinary decisions constitutional

________________

The Constitutional Court has ruled that reviewing Media Council Disciplinary Committee decisions does not violate the Constitution.

Petitioner Faridah Nakazibwe had challenged the constitutionality of subjecting decisions of the Media Council Disciplinary Committee to judicial review by the High Court, arguing that the committee functions as a subordinate court under Article 129(1)(d) of the Constitution and should only be subject to appeal.

However, the Attorney General opposed the petition, asserting that the Committee is an administrative tribunal, not a court, and its decisions could legally be reviewed.

In a ruling dated March 11, 2025, the Constitutional Court panel, led by justice Geoffrey Kiryabwire, ruled that the Media Council Disciplinary Committee is an administrative body, not a subordinate court, emphasising that judicial review of its decisions does not violate the Constitution.

Consequently, the justices dismissed Nakazibwe’s petition and ordered each party to bear its own costs.

Other justices on the panel were Irene Mulyagonja, Christopher Gashirabake, Eva Luswata and John Oscar Kihika.

The justices noted that the procedure of the disciplinary committee under Section 32 of the Press and Journalists Act is the same as the Media Council as a media regulator. They said Section 34 provides for appeals from the Disciplinary Committee to be lodged at the High Court.

According to the justices, the membership, procedure used and remedies of the disciplinary committee are not consistent with that of a subordinate court but are rather supportive of the Media Council functions in regulating the media profession.

Citing the Press and Journalists Act and applying Article 129 (l) (2)of the Constitution and the legal authorities, the justices said Parliament did not intend for the Disciplinary Committee to be a subordinate court but rather that it functions as an administrative tribunal.

“The Disciplinary Committee is an administrative body/tribunal and not a subordinate court,” Kiryabwire ruled.