Summary:
- Petitioners were advised to seek redress in a competent court under Article 50.
KAMPALA: The Constitutional Court has dismissed a petition challenging the appropriation of UGX 10 billion by Parliament during the 2019/2020 fiscal year to combat the COVID-19 pandemic.
This allocation, which included UGX 20 million for each individual Member of Parliament (MP), sparked questions regarding constitutional compliance, accountability, and jurisdiction.
Background
On April 7, 2020, Parliament resolved to appropriate UGX 10 billion from the supplementary budget for the COVID-19 pandemic to the Parliamentary Commission for distribution to MPs.
This resolution bypassed the Executive’s requisition and the Budget Committee’s deliberations, raising concerns that it violated constitutional provisions, including Articles 93, 156, and 233, as well as the Public Finance Management Act, 2015.
The petitioners argued that Parliament:
Self-allocated funds, contrary to principles of public finance and leadership codes.
Reduced the health sector’s budget to cater to personal interests.
Passed the resolution without following the Parliamentary Rules of Procedure.
The petitioners sought declarations that the appropriation was unconstitutional, driven by personal interests, and undermined good governance.
Court’s Findings
The Constitutional Court ruled that its jurisdiction under Article 137 of the Constitution is limited to interpreting constitutional provisions. The Court concluded that the petition mainly raised allegations of procedural irregularities, which did not require constitutional interpretation and therefore fell outside the Court’s jurisdiction.
The Court emphasized that procedural breaches, such as non-compliance with Article 93, do not automatically warrant constitutional interpretation. These grievances should instead be addressed under Article 50 of the Constitution in a competent court.
Additionally, the Court noted that the issues raised in the petition had already been resolved in the Mwesigye Wilson case, invoking the principle of claim preclusion (res judicata).
In its ruling, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that it was improperly filed in the Constitutional Court. Petitioners were advised to seek redress in a competent court under Article 50.
