The Constitutional Court, in a four to one decision, has dismissed a petition challenging the authority of National Resistance Movement 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 these positions. This move was widely seen as an attempt to sideline then Secretary General Patrick Amama Mbabazi, who had expressed interest in contesting against Museveni.
Following the amendments, Museveni appointed Justine Kasule Lumumba as Secretary General to replace Mbabazi.
Dissatisfied with the process, party member Hamzah Kagimu petitioned the Constitutional Court, arguing that the amendments violated both the NRM constitution and the Political Parties and Organizations Act.
In the majority opinion authored by Justice Moses Kazibwe Kawumi and supported by Justices Hellen Obura, Dr Asa Mugenyi, and Eva Luswata, the court ruled that the NRM acted within its rights in amending its constitution for more effective party management.
“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.
It is imperative to emphasize that the Secretariat coordinates all activities of the other organs.
The appointment of these office bearers to the National Conference, National Executive Council, and Central Executive Committee should be viewed as a matter of internal organization for the efficient coordination of the party’s activities.
If they were appointed to the respective committees with full rights like elected members, it would breach Article 71 clause d of the Constitution,” Justice Kawumi wrote.
The judges further ruled that Kagimu was wrong to sue Museveni in his capacity as NRM chairman because the law prohibits any civil or criminal proceedings against a sitting President.
They also held that the Attorney General could not be sued for actions taken by the NRM since he is not responsible for running the party.
However, in a dissenting opinion, Justice Fredrick Egonda Ntende disagreed with the majority.
He argued that the NRM constitutional amendments were inconsistent with the national Constitution and should therefore be declared null and void.
He noted that the term “ex officio” simply means that one holds a position by virtue of office and not through election or separate appointment.
“It does not limit membership but only refers to how one assumes the position. In this case, it means the officials are members of the NRM national organs because of the offices they hold.
There is no limitation on their rights in the NRM constitution other than being non-voting members,” he stated.
Justice Egonda Ntende concluded that the constitution of a political party is not a law but rather an agreement among its members.
“The constitution of a political organisation or party is a pact by which its members agree to manage their affairs. It cannot override the Constitution of Uganda simply for convenience.
Loyalty to the Constitution, especially Article 2, cannot justify the course taken by the second respondent as challenged in this petition,” he ruled.
English 