KAMPALA – Uganda’s Constitutional Court has determined that members of the Leadership Code Tribunal are not entitled to the same privileges, salary, and tenure as judges in the mainstream Judiciary.
In a unanimous judgment, the five-judge panel, led by Justice Asa Mugenyi, affirmed that the Leadership Code Tribunal (LCT) is not a court of judicature as defined by the Constitution. Therefore, members of the tribunal, including Mr. Asuman Kiyingi and Ms. Joyce Nalunga Birimumaso, cannot claim the same terms of service as High Court judges.
“The Leadership Code Tribunal is not a court of judicature within the meaning of Articles 129(1) of the Constitution,” Justice Mugenyi wrote in the lead judgment. “The petitioners are not judicial officers of the courts of judicature and cannot enjoy the tenure of office, terms, and conditions of service currently enjoyed by judicial officers, unless specifically provided for in their letters of appointment.”
The ruling brings clarity to a long-running legal dispute after the two petitioners, Kiyingi and Birimumaso, challenged the terms of their appointment to the Leadership Code Tribunal, arguing that they were unfairly treated compared to their counterparts in the Judiciary.
Dispute Over Terms of Service
The case centered on the petitioners’ claims that their five-year renewable tenure, along with a lower salary compared to traditional judges, violated their constitutional rights. They contended that the tribunal is a subordinate court, and as such, its members should be entitled to the same benefits as judges of the High Court, including permanent and pensionable status.
However, the Attorney General countered by arguing that the Leadership Code Tribunal is a quasi-judicial body, tasked with handling issues related to leadership ethics, and does not perform judicial functions like courts of judicature. This, the government argued, means its members do not qualify for the same privileges as judicial officers in the formal courts.
Justice Mugenyi, supported by Justices Irene Mulyagonja, Oscar Kihika, Margaret Tibulya, and Moses Kazibwe Kawumi, agreed with the Attorney General’s position. The court noted that the Leadership Code (Amendment) Act specifically refrains from referring to tribunal members as judges, and the members do not possess the legal qualifications or duties required of judges in the Judiciary.
A Win for the Government’s Interpretation
In rejecting the petitioners’ claims, the Constitutional Court emphasized the unique role of the Leadership Code Tribunal as a non-judicial body. “The tribunal’s procedures are informal, and its members include individuals who are not lawyers. This is further evidence that they cannot be considered judicial officers under the Administration of the Judiciary Act,” Justice Mugenyi said.
The court also addressed claims of salary discrimination, noting that while the tribunal members may earn less than their judicial counterparts, this discrepancy is legally justified given the differing nature of their roles.
Implications for Uganda’s Legal Landscape
The ruling clarifies the status of the Leadership Code Tribunal and its members, distinguishing it from the judicial branch of government. The decision also underscores the importance of clear legal definitions in determining the terms and conditions of service for various public officeholders.
For now, Kiyingi and Birimumaso, along with other members of the Leadership Code Tribunal, will continue to serve under the terms outlined in their original appointments, without the benefits or privileges enjoyed by judges of Uganda’s courts of judicature.
This ruling marks a significant moment in Uganda’s legal history, setting a precedent for how tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies are treated under the law, and how they are differentiated from the formal Judiciary.
Discussion about this post