The Commercial Court sitting in Kampala today, July 21, presided over by Judge Mugarura resolved to submit the Banyoro Civil Case No 595 of 2004 to the Uganda Constitutional Court for interpretation.
Banyoro are seeking to nullify the Anglo-Ganda 1900 Agreement. They are also demanding reparations of Pound Sterling 500 billion from Her Majesty’s Government for the atrocities British colonial forces, allied to Baganda kingdom, committed when they invaded Bunyoro-Kitara kingdom under King Kabaleega in the war of 1893-99 when over two million Banyoro were killed.
The Commercial Court had two weeks ago declared that this case should not be heard in the Land Division. It could not make a ruling, so lawyers Ayena Odongo and Company representing the Banyoro, and Joseph Luswata representing Buganda kingdom, agreed to formulate questions, or aspects, which they want the Constitutional Court to make an interpretation.
The Uganda Attorney General, although a principal defendant, has not been appearing in court since the case began.
The Buganda Kingdom legal team had no objection to the development of seeking the interpretation of the Constitutional Court. The Banyoro side were most agreeable.
Judge Mugarura two weeks ago asked Banyoro’s Lawyers, Ayena Odongo, to draft the questions and aspects they want the Constitutional Court to interpret.
While Joseph Luswata for Buganda Kindgom had no questions or aspects, to be interpreted by the Constitutional Court, Ayena Odongo presented the following questions to Judge Mugarura for sending to the Constitutional Court for interpretation;
1. Interpretation of Chapter No Four, and in particular Articles 20, 21, 26, 45, 50 (1), 32, (1) and (5) of the Uganda Constitution, 1995 in relation to the plaintiff’s fundamental and other other rights and freedom and their interest and right to land, as affected by the provisions of the so-called Uganda Agreement 1900 to determine whether or not;
a) The fundamental and other rights and freedoms of the plaintiffs were and are still affected by the so-called Uganda Agreement of 1900?
b) The selective application of the Land Fund by the 3rd Defendant to buy land and finance the socio-economic activities of the non-indigenous immigrants only and in disregard of the plaintiffs does offend the constitution.
c) The creation of Settlement Schemes without due compensation to the plaintiffs does offend the Constitution.
d) This is not fit and proper case in which the plaintiffs should bee entitled to compensation for infringement of their fundamental and other rights and freedoms guaranteed under the 1995 Constitution.
2. Interpretation of Chapter four, and in particular Articles 20, 21,26, 45,50 (1), 32 (1) and 5 of the Uganda Constitution, 1995 to determine whether or not the maintenance and application of the so-called Uganda Agreement, 1900 is consonant with the guarantee of the fundamental and other rights and freedoms of the plaintiffs provided for in the 1995 Constitution.
3.Interpretation of the Uganda Agreement ,1900; having formed the foundation of the constitutional development of Uganda; and having become an intergeral part of the constitution of Uganda; top determine its validity in regard to the plaintiffs?
4.Interpretation of Chapter Four, and in particular articles 20,21,26,45,50 (1), 32,(1) and (5), and chapter fifteen Article 237 of the Uganda Constitution, 1995 in relation to the interest and right of to land of the Plaintiffs as originally determined under provisions of sections (1) and (2) 0f the Uganda Constitution (Third Amendment) Act, 1964 and the section 3(2) of the Republican Constitution of Uganda 1967 (both repealed) to determine whether or not;
a) The letter and spirit of of the provisions of section (1) and (2) of the Uganda
Constitution (Third Amendment) Act, 1964 and section 3 (2) of the Republican Constitution of Uganda 1967 (both repealed) were taken care of while making the 1995 Constitution? If not, whether or not the omission by the 1st Defendant has continued to perpertuate the marginalisation of the plaintiffs created by reason of history since 1900 as envfisaged in under the Constitution.
b) The maintenance and application in the suit land of the mailo Land system, otherwise alien to the susit land, does offend the provisions of the constitution inrelation to the plaintiffs?
Dated July 21, 2011, signed by Ayena Odongo, counsel for the Plaintiffs
The attached pictures show Ayena Odongo (alone);
The second group photo shows four of the litigants with Ayena Adongo
Henry Ford Miirima
Press Secretary of the Omukama of Bunyoro-Kitara Kingdom