KAMPALA – Presidential hopeful Lt Gen Henry Tumukunde is seeking the Constitutional Court’s interpretation of the case in which he is challenging the summons issued by the Police’s Criminal Investigations Department (CID).
Justice Musa Ssekaana on Tuesday, September 15, 2020 ruled that Tumukunde did not provide evidence before court, indicating that he was facing arrest had he appeared before the CID headed by Grace Akullo. Ssekaana said that the presidential hopeful did not fully explain to court his case and an injunction would affect the operations of CID, which is a public body.
The judge had asked Tumukunde and the government side to put in written submissions in the case so that he can deliver his judgement on October 23, 2020.
However, Tumukunde has now petitioned the High Court Civil division. Tumukunde wants High Court to halt the proceedings in the pending case before Ssekaana and instead forward the file to the constitutional court to interpret five constitutional questions that arose from his case.
According to his petition, Tumukunde wants the Constitutional Court to interpret whether the functions of the Attorney General under Article 119 clause four of the constitution can extend to representing individual civil/public servants who have been personally accused of human rights violations in light of article 50(1) of the Constitution and section 10 clause one of the Human Rights Enforcement Act, 2019.
The said law under the Human Rights Enforcement Act provides that any public officer who individually or associates with others to violate one’s rights has to be personally liable for his or her offences. It also adds that in case court orders for compensation to the victim of that public officer’s actions, the officer is supposed to pay a portion of the award ordered by the court.
Tumukunde also wants the constitutional court to interpret whether while seeking to enforce his rights under article 50 clause one can be forced to sue or maintaining a suit or against the Attorney General or any other person.
“Whether the act of criminalizing the discussion of politics with veterans by Akullo was discriminatory and amounts to an infringement on the right of the applicant and the said veterans have freedom of association contrary to article 29.1.1 of the constitution,” reads the petition in part.
