Debate in public interest
THE GOVERNMENT has filed a notice of appeal in the Supreme Court, challenging a ruling by a lower court.
THE GOVERNMENT has filed a notice of appeal in the Supreme Court, challenging a ruling by a lower court.
The Constitutional Court last Friday nullified the 2000 Referendum Act, eliciting a strong-worded response from the President among others. President Museveni said the ruling was an unacceptable attempt to usurp the power of the people, and hence the government’s appeal.
But justice minister Janat Mukwaya stopped Parliament from debating the matter, citing sub judice. This, by extension, means that the public cannot debate the issues. The rule of sub judice proscribes debate and comment on an issue under judicial consideration. Its purpose is to prevent undue influence on the outcome of a case; to ensure that the process of justice is impartial.
But in the case of this ruling, no party would be prejudiced by public debate. The ruling was made on the procedures with which the Referendum Act was arrived at. The debate was stimulated by the President’s statement, to which there were varied responses, including a street demonstration, comments by Members of Parliament, and a statement from the Uganda Law Society.
Plus, of course, the complicated nature of the ruling — its implications, or lack of any, on the country’s political future, its meaning for the recent past — is a matter of public debate.
The rule of sub judice is critical if
an individual or party is unfairly prejudiced. But this is a case of public interest litigation in which opinions are, inevitably, being expressed. The public should, therefore, be free to debate this matter so that there is no confusion as to their aspirations.
The Constitutional Court last Friday nullified the 2000 Referendum Act, eliciting a strong-worded response from the President among others. President Museveni said the ruling was an unacceptable attempt to usurp the power of the people, and hence the government’s appeal.
But justice minister Janat Mukwaya stopped Parliament from debating the matter, citing sub judice. This, by extension, means that the public cannot debate the issues. The rule of sub judice proscribes debate and comment on an issue under judicial consideration. Its purpose is to prevent undue influence on the outcome of a case; to ensure that the process of justice is impartial.
But in the case of this ruling, no party would be prejudiced by public debate. The ruling was made on the procedures with which the Referendum Act was arrived at. The debate was stimulated by the President’s statement, to which there were varied responses, including a street demonstration, comments by Members of Parliament, and a statement from the Uganda Law Society.
Plus, of course, the complicated nature of the ruling — its implications, or lack of any, on the country’s political future, its meaning for the recent past — is a matter of public debate.
The rule of sub judice is critical if
an individual or party is unfairly prejudiced. But this is a case of public interest litigation in which opinions are, inevitably, being expressed. The public should, therefore, be free to debate this matter so that there is no confusion as to their aspirations.