The Ugandan judiciary continues to assert its role as a vital check on executive authority, upholding the rule of law. Two recent High Court decisions, one by Justice Karemani against Dr. Sam Mayanja and another by Justice Boniface Wamala against State House legal officer Sandra Ndyomugyenyi, demonstrate this courageous commitment. Both cases addressed executive interference in land disputes already settled by courts.
These rulings quashed the decisions made by the errant officials, reinforcing the separation of powers under Uganda's Constitution and ensuring executive actions do not override judicial decisions. Justice Wamala was stern in drawing the boundaries between the executive and legislative functions of government. He stated, "An officer in the Legal Department of State House... has no power to make a legal provision having the force of law; since this falls within the ambit of the Legislature."
It is also interesting that the Attorney General did not defend the actions of the minister, leaving the matter uncontested.
However, the absence of personal sanctions of aggravated damages and costs against the errant officials highlights a gap in ensuring full accountability. The court, perhaps with more guidance from counsel, could do more to show its disapproval of executive excess. The Inspector General of Government could also perhaps pick it up from here to explore possible violations of the Leadership Code by these errant officials.
A robust and courageous judiciary is the bedrock to safeguarding Uganda's rule of law.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
