Speaker Among defends secret vetting amid criticism from legal experts
Speaker Anita Among (2nd Left) is received by Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo (left) and other justices during the 7th Benedicto Kiwanuka Memorial Lecture in Kampala on September 20, 2024. PHOTO/COURTESY OF SPEAKER X HANDLE
What you need to know:
- The Constitutional Court's decision, delivered in September last year, dismissed a petition by journalists challenging the closed-door vetting of appointed public officials.
Dr Zahara Nampewo, the deputy principal of Makerere University's School of Law, has criticised the recent court decision that upheld the closed-door vetting of presidential nominees by Parliament.
Speaking at the seventh Benedicto Kiwanuka Memorial Lecture in Kampala, Dr Nampewo expressed concern over the lack of transparency in the process, questioning how such a ruling could be made in a democratic society where openness is essential.
“I’m seeing a rise in judicial conservatism. The Constitutional Court’s decision to approve secretive vetting by the Parliamentary Appointments Committee undermines the promotion of transparency and accountability," she said.
She further emphasised that the ruling obstructs the public’s access to timely and accurate information about the vetting process.
“Were there any exceptional circumstances permitted by the Constitution to justify this exclusion of the public in a democratic society?” she questioned.
Dr Nampewo also warned that such rulings could erode public trust and foster unconscious bias within the Judiciary, which is the ultimate guarantor of citizens' rights.
The Constitutional Court's decision, delivered in September last year, dismissed a petition by journalists challenging the closed-door vetting of appointed public officials.
The court held that limitations on access to information, expression, and media rights imposed by Rule 165(2) of Parliament’s rules are acceptable and justifiable in a democratic society.
Justice Irene Mulyagonja, who authored the lead judgment, stated that the petitioners failed to prove they were unable to access the vetting proceedings through the channels provided by the Access to Information Act.
The petition, filed by journalists Simon Kaggwa Njala and Sulaiman Kakaire, along with Legal Brain Trust, sought to challenge the exclusion of the media from the vetting process.
In response, Speaker Anita Among defended Parliament's actions, stating that they were acting within the law.
“The framers of the law knew why vetting should be done in camera, but these laws are not cast in stone and can be amended,” Ms Among said.
She also cautioned against opening the process to the public, suggesting it could be used to disrupt or target individuals involved in the vetting.
At the same event, Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo said the late Chief Justice Benedicto Kiwanuka was not killed for speaking out on issues but for a case he was handling at the time.
He addressed critics who have called for the judiciary to take a public stand on human rights abuses, stating that judicial officers must act within the confines of their role.
“When a matter becomes a court case, that is the territory where a judicial officer must speak up,” Justice Dollo emphasised.
On September 21, 1972, armed soldiers, acting on the orders of then-president Idi Amin, abducted Chief Justice Kiwanuka from the High Court.
It is widely believed that he was killed by Amin at Nakasero State Lodge following a disagreement over human rights issues.
