Court dismisses petition challenging Museveni’s appointment of NRM Secretary General, Treasurer

Kampala, Uganda | THE INDDEPENDENT | The Constitutional Court, in a four-to-one decision, has dismissed a petition challenging the authority of National Resistance Movement (NRM) Chairman and President, Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, to appoint the party’s Secretary General, Treasurer, and their deputies.

In 2014, the NRM amended its constitution to eliminate the election of the Secretary General, Treasurer, and their deputies—an apparent move to undermine then-Secretary General Patrick Amama Mbabazi, who had expressed interest in challenging Museveni.

Following the amendments, Museveni appointed Justine Kasule Lumumba to replace Mbabazi as Secretary General. Dissatisfied, Hamzah Kagimu, a member of the party, petitioned the Constitutional Court, arguing that the amendments contravened provisions of their constitution and the Political Parties and Organizations Act. In the majority decision written by Justice Moses Kazibwe Kawumi, the court held that the NRM was within its right to carry out such amendments for the better management of the party.

“It can be discerned from the respective offices that the four members hold at the Secretariat that their appointment to sit on the three organs is to enable them to fulfill! their mandate which is largely administrative and not political. lt is imperative to emphasize that the Secretariat coordinates all activities of all other organs. The appointment of the four office bearers to the National Conference, National Executive Council, and the Central Executive Committee should be construed as a matter of internal organisation for the efficient coordination of activities of the second respondent. lf they were to be appointed to the respective committees with full rights as other elected members, it would be in breach of Article 71(d) of the Constitution,” Kazibwe wrote in his decision, joined by Justices Hellen Obura, Dr Asa Mugenyi, and Eva Luswata.

The judges also said Kiggundu had erred in suing Museveni in his capacity as the NRM chairman because the law prohibits any civil and criminal proceedings against a sitting President. The court also held that the Attorney General can’t be sued for actions taken by the NRM party, as he is not responsible for its running.

However, Justice Fredrick Egonda-Ntende disagreed with the majority, arguing that the NRM constitutional amendments were inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution and thus null and void. Egonda-Ntende argued that the argument that the four officers complained about being ex-officials on top NRM organs doesn’t at all change the fact that they have no people’s mandate. “Ex Officio, a latin phrase, simply means that one is the holder of a certain position by virtue of office,rather than elected or appointed in some other way. It does not in any way limit membership but it relates only to how one is appointed to that office. In the case at hand, it means that the said officials are members of the NRM national organs by virtue of holding the offices they hold. There is no limitation imposed upon their rights as members of such organs in the NRM constitution other than being non-voting members,” Justice Egonda-Ntende hence ruled that sections of the NRM constitution that allow for their appointment are inconsistent with the constitution of Uganda.

“The constitution of a political organisation or political party is not law. It is a pact or agreement by which the members of that political party or organisation agree to be bound by in the conduct of their party’s affairs. That constitution cannot override the Constitution of the country simply because it is convenient to the running of the affairs of such an organisation or party. Fidelity to the dictates of the Constitution, particularly Article 2, cannot permit the path adopted by the respondent no.2, and complained of in this petition,” the judge held.

*****

URN