Court orders are binding even to parliament, the Uganda Law Society (ULS) has said. This was in reaction to a response from speaker of Rebecca Kadaga, who, accused the attorney general William Byaruhanga of working in collusion with the Judiciary to overrun parliament.
MPs have come to under intense criticism after they allocated themselves Shs 10 billion (Shs 20 million each) to fight the spread of coronavirus in Uganda.
Ntungamo Municipality MP Gerald Karuhanga and the Erute South MP, Jonathan Odur took parliament to court and managed to secure an interim injunction blocking the disbursement or spending of the now controversial money.
On April 21, justice Esta Nambayo stopped MPs from using the money until the matter is decided upon by court on April 29. Kadaga said courts had no business in determining on how MPs utilise their accounts.
Byaruhanga warned parliament that the court order was binding to parliament and must be respected but he was shut down by Kadaga who even described the process of taking parliament to court as "stupidity".
Below is the full statement from ULS
The Uganda Law Society has learned and observed the response of members of parliament directed to the learned attorney general of the Republic of Uganda and the judiciary, after the learned attorney general had issued his advice to parliament in respect to the implication of the interim court order in High court miscellaneous application no 180 of 2020 (Hon Gerald Karuhanga Vs The Parliamentary Commission And Anor)
While we are aware of the Supreme court decision in Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo & Ors v attorney general, Constitutional Appeal No. 01 of 2015, where it was held that "... the principle of separation of powers should be duly observed to avoid erosion of the Constitutional functions of the other arms of government... the effect of interpreting the opinion of the attorney general, a member of the executive, relating particularly, to the manner in which the speaker of parliament, the head of the legislative arm of government, should carry out his/ her constitutional functions, as binding clearly violates the principle of separation of powers," our advice on this matter is as follows;
1. The judiciary as an institution must be respected, it is one of the three arms of government and so statements meant to undermine it in any way should be avoided.
2. That any person aggrieved by the actions of the legislature, executive or a private citizen is required by law to refer the said dispute to the judiciary as a neutral independent arbiter.
3. That the attorney general's opinion and parliament's right to disagree with it should be respected. However, we urge parliament to use legally established methods of addressing circumstances where they disagree with such advice.
4. That orders issued by the courts of law should be respected, they are binding regardless of whether any party finds them unreasonable or otherwise.
5. That any party aggrieved by a court order should use established legal procedures to expunge or quash it, but until that order is reversed by another order it should be respected.
We continue to advise that, the different arms of government together with the office bearers respect one another. This is important to ensure that the public does not lose confidence in the office bearers or the institutions.
We urge all the institutions of government and the office bearers to always respect the Rule of Law.
For God and my Country
Simon Peter M. Kinobe
ULS PRESIDENT
Source
