Constitutional Court tells Leadership Tribunal to back off judges’ privileges

The Constitutional Court has said members of the Leadership Code Tribunal are not judicial officers governed by the Administration of the Judiciary Act and are not entitled to the same privileges and salary.

In a unanimous judgment, the five justices of the court held that the concerned members of the Leadership Code Tribunal, Mr Asuman Kiyingi, and Ms Joyce Nalunga Birimumaso, accepted the terms of their appointment and cannot again turn around to demand equal terms as those of the mainstream judicial officers.

“The Leadership Code Tribunal is not a court of judicature within the meaning of Articles 129 (1), but was established as a tribunal under Article 235A of the constitution,” ruled `, who wrote the lead judgment. Adding: “The petitioners are not judicial officers of the courts of judicature under articles 129 (1)d and 15 (a) of the Constitution and cannot enjoy the tenure of office, terms, and conditions of service currently enjoyed by the judicial officers equivalent to or at comparable levels in the Judiciary unless it is provided for in their letters of appointment.”

The other justices were Irene Mulyagonja, Oscar Kihika, Margaret Tibulya, and Moses Kazibwe Kawumi.

Core to the unsuccessful petition of Mr Kiyingi and Ms Birimumaso was that the Judicial Service Commission put out an advert, calling for suitable Ugandans to fill up vacant positions of the Leadership Code Tribunal.

The duo applied for the positions of deputy chairperson and member respectively, which they succeeded and were appointed on such terms and conditions stated in the job advert.

However, they contend that later, they realised that their terms, including a five-year tenure which is renewable once, were unconstitutional and also discriminatory since their counterparts in the mainstream Judiciary are employed on a permanent and pensionable basis. They contended that the Leadership Code Tribunal is a subordinate court and that those who serve on it are judicial officers who should be entitled to the same tenure of service, status, privileges, terms and conditions of service as judges of the High Court.

But the Attorney General in response held that the Leadership Code Tribunal is merely a quasi-judicial body that neither performs a judicial function nor an administrative function and the procedures that go on there are informal, making them quasi-judicial bodies.

Justice Mugenyi agreed with the Attorney General that the Leadership Code (Amendment) Act deliberately did not refer to the members of the Leadership Code Tribunal as judges.

 “That is why they designated them as chairperson and deputy chairperson. 

They, therefore, cannot sit as judicial officers of a court of judicature. As both parties noted, there are members of the Leadership Code Tribunal who are not lawyers, hence, they do not have the qualifications of judges in the Judiciary nor can they be considered as judicial officers under the Administration of the Judiciary Act,” she held.

Further in their petition, the duo petitioners had pleaded that they were being discriminated against in terms of being paid less salary compared to the traditional judges, whose lower salary is also taxed by URA unlike those in the mainstream Judiciary whose salary is much more and yet untaxed.

They had also claimed that their terms of tenure in office is five years and yet those in the Judiciary, their tenure is permanent and pensionable. But the court rejected their arguments.