Law
Opposition Runs to Court to Challenge Disputed Bill, Citing Flouted Process and Disregard for Supreme Court
Joel Ssenyonyi, the Leader of the Opposition, announced today that the opposition will be heading to court to challenge a recently passed bill, accusing Parliament of flouting due process, disregarding a Supreme Court ruling, and stifling public consultation.
The dramatic announcement came after opposition members staged a walkout during a plenary session, protesting what they termed a “sham process.”
Ssenyonyi, speaking to journalists after the walkout, vehemently criticized the parliamentary process surrounding the bill. He highlighted that the joint committee tasked with reviewing the legislation “disregarded” the views of stakeholders and failed to observe the legally stipulated 45-day period for public consultation.
“Laws are made for the people, and that’s why there’s provision for them to take at least 45 days provided for within the law that was flouted,” Ssenyonyi stated, emphasising the lack of meaningful engagement with the public.
He further alleged that the majority committee report might have been “generated before” any genuine deliberation, suggesting a predetermined outcome. “Even the committee process did not end as it should have,” Ssenyonyi asserted, pointing out that members were not given adequate time to prepare minority reports reflecting dissenting views.
The Leader of Opposition expressed appreciation for colleagues on the committee who “put in a lot of effort” to represent the voice of the public, particularly commending a “very good Minority Report” that he believes the courts will scrutinize.
Ssenyonyi explained that the opposition’s decision to walk out stemmed from the Speaker’s perceived unwillingness to address their procedural concerns. He argued that once a bill reaches the committee stage, it becomes impossible to engage stakeholders, rendering any subsequent consultation meaningless.
“We realised they were not interested in that. We said, ‘No, this is a sham, and we shall not be part of this sham process,'” Ssenyonyi declared, reiterating their refusal to legitimise what they view as an illegitimate parliamentary proceeding.
A significant point of contention for the opposition is that the bill “goes against the ruling of the Supreme Court.” Ssenyonyi cited a Supreme Court decision that affirmed the right of civilians to be tried in civilian courts, even for soldiers, with military courts reserved only for “service offences” or internal disciplinary matters. He accused the government of intending to circumvent this ruling through the new legislation.
The opposition’s legal challenge will be based on several grounds:
Flouting of Article 92 of the Constitution: Ssenyonyi stated that this article, which pertains to parliamentary procedures, has been violated.
Disregard for Supreme Court Ruling: The opposition will argue that the bill directly contradicts the Supreme Court’s pronouncements on the jurisdiction of military courts over civilians and soldiers.
Lack of Due Process and Consultation: The absence of the mandated 45-day consultation period and the alleged pre-determined nature of the committee report will form a key part of their argument.
Ssenyonyi expressed confidence in their legal standing, stating, “We have adequate grounds.” He added that they are engaging with various civil society organisations and stakeholders to consolidate their efforts and present a strong case before the courts. “We are going to put the courts to the test,” he concluded, vowing to fight for the principles of constitutionalism and due process.
Comments
