2022-04-19

  • Customary Law
  • Constitutional Law

Why Africanist Judges Must Trash Repugnancy Tests

Article by Kabazzi Maurice Lwanga

Abstract

The theme is that the doctrine of repugnancy via customary law is irrational and must be abandoned. The repugnancy doctrine was used as a hegemonic control of African laws. It lacks clear guidelines for the invalidation of customary law. This note argues that the repugnancy test has no doctrinal value and normative standards capable of articulation. Otherwise, the judges’ power under Article 126 (2) (e) of the Ugandan Constitution to administer justice in accordance with the aspirations and values of the people need to be guided in respect to customary law. It concludes that the retention of the repugnancy principle is unconstitutional and should be replaced by judicial flexibility applying the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State policy under the 1995 constitution.

Related Articles

Long Walk To Justiciability: Article 8a And Uganda’s National Objectives And Directive Principles Of State Policy

Kansiime M. Taremwa and Lisandra Kabagenyi

The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda was lauded by many commentators as one of the best in the region. Much of these sentiments of admiration gained traction because of the comprehensive nature of the Bill of Rights in Chapter 4 of the Constitution. However, the main body of Chapter 4 did not include a number of economic, social and cultural rights and they were instead included as part of the manifesto of aspirations code named, the “National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy.” Judicial enforcement of ESCRs became difficult because of the fact that these National Objectives were not considered justiciable. In 2005, the Constitution was amended, introducing a new Article 8A in its main body that seemed to suggest that NODSPs were not merely aspirations. Notwithstanding some victories, the experience that the courts have had with Article 8A has left a lot to be desired.

To Grant Or Not To Grant Bail Pending Appeal: A Review Of The Supreme Court’s Decision In Magombe Joshua V. Uganda

Gerald Ndobya & Bruno E. Amanya

The recently decided case of Magombe Joshua v Uganda declared the concept of bail pending appeal nonexistent in the Ugandan Human rights regime on ground that there is no constitutional basis upon which the Supreme Court or lower appellate court could grant the same. This decision departs from earlier decisions of the Supreme Court that had allowed bail applications pending appeal. This paper elucidates that the decision in Magombe v. Uganda upsets the constitutionally recognized law on right to apply for bail. The paper also highlights the various factors left in issue by the decision, paying particular interest to the scope of the presumption of innocence and the need for a liberal and general approach to constitutional interpretation.

Defending The Right To Love: A Case For Registration Of Customary Marriages

Lawrence Alado and Reagan Siima Musinguzi

Customary marriages occur frequently in Uganda, but the inability to prove these marriages has resulted in many parties being unfairly deprived of the benefits and rights that come with being legally married. This paper argues for the mandatory registration of customary marriages to safeguard these rights. The authors conduct a comprehensive analysis of the existing frameworks governing customary marriages by identifying the gaps within the framework, examining the advantages that would arise from mandatory registration, addressing potential challenges, and outlining how the registration process should be carried out. The authors contend that the failure to mandate registration denies spouses and their offspring the rights that they are entitled to as a result of their marriage.

The Right To Family Life In Armed Conflicts Situations

Olaitan O. Olusegun

Armed conflicts signify anarchy, chaos and confusion with various effects on all parts of the society, including the family. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 16(3) recognises the family as the fundamental unit of the society. Families are disrupted in periods of war and conflict, which affects the social, economic and emotional support provided to individuals going through difficult times. This paper discusses war and conflict, the extent of damage done to the family and the implications for nations. The legal framework which seeks to protect the family and steps which should be taken in preserving the family in war and conflict are also discussed. It concludes by recommending measures that should be adopted to preserve families during conflicts such as re-establishment of family links upon the cessation of conflicts, family reunification, marriage counselling and provision of basic needs of families. This way, the value of families will be preserved and sustained in society.