KAMPALA, Uganda | The Constitutional Court has delivered a judgment clarifying that members of the Leadership Code Tribunal are not judicial officers under Uganda’s Constitution. This decision came in response to a Constitutional Petition, filed by Hon. Asuman Kiyingi and Ms. Joyce Nalunga Birimumasoin 2022, who argued that their roles as Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the tribunal should entitle them to the same status, benefits, and privileges as judicial officers like High Court judges. However, the Court disagreed, clarifying the separation between the judiciary and executive bodies.

In its detailed ruling, the Court emphasized that while the Leadership Code Tribunal exercises certain judicial functions, it was created under Article 235A of the Constitution, placing it under the executive branch, specifically the Ministry of Ethics and Integrity. The judges made it clear that the tribunal was never intended to be part of the judiciary, which is governed under Chapter 8 of the Constitution. Instead, the Leadership Code Tribunal was established to provide a specialized forum for handling cases related to the conduct of public leaders, distinct from the formal courts of judicature.

“This tribunal was created to enhance accountability and expedite matters related to the Leadership Code of Conduct,” noted the lead judgment by Justice Dr. Asa Mugenyi. “Its purpose, composition, and jurisdiction, as outlined in the Constitution, do not align with the traditional structure of the judiciary.”

A major argument presented by the petitioners was that their qualifications, equivalent to those of High Court judges, should afford them the same recognition and benefits. However, the Court decisively ruled that possessing similar qualifications does not automatically grant judicial status. The Administration of Judiciary Act and Chapter 8 of the Constitution specifically outline the roles and protections of judicial officers, which do not extend to members of executive tribunals.

The Court also addressed the petitioners’ concerns about their 5-year renewable contracts, which they argued were inconsistent with the permanent and pensionable terms of judicial officers. The Court found that the fixed tenure was consistent with the Leadership Code Act, which prescribes the appointment terms for tribunal members. The petitioners had accepted these terms upon their appointment, and the Court noted that these contracts do not violate the Constitution.

The petitioners further claimed that their remuneration, including the taxation of their salaries, was discriminatory compared to the tax-exempt status enjoyed by judicial officers. The Court dismissed this argument, explaining that tribunal members fall under the public service, where tax exemptions do not apply. Their terms of service, including salary, are determined by the Minister of Ethics and Integrity, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, and are consistent with the provisions of theLeadership Code Act.

The ruling also addressed concerns about the tribunal’s independence. The petitioners argued that being under the Ministry of Ethics and Integrity compromised their impartiality. The Court, however, reaffirmed that the tribunal’s placement within the executive does not interfere with its judicial functions. Members take a judicial oath to act independently, and their adjudicative duties are separate from the ministry’s administrative oversight.

“Independence in decision-making is a fundamental principle, even for executive tribunals,” the judgment stated. “The fact that the tribunal operates under the executive branch does not diminish its impartiality or its role in enforcing the Leadership Code of Conduct.”

While the ruling may feel like a setback for tribunal members, the judgment provides a definitive interpretation of the Constitution’s intent regarding the status of the Leadership Code Tribunal and its members. By affirming the tribunal’s position within the executive branch, the Constitutional Court has maintained the separation of powers, ensuring that the distinct roles of the judiciary and executive bodies are respected.