JAMES KATABAZI & 21 OTHERS v. THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE EAST AFRICAN COMMUNITY & ANOTHER

Case Number	REFERENCE NO. 1 OF 2007
Summary	The Applicants were charged in the High Court with treason and misprision of treason in 2004 without bail. On 16th November 2006 when bail was eventually granted, security personnel surrounded the court, interfered with the preparation of the bail documents and rearrested the applicants. On 24th November 2006 applicants were charged before the General Court Martial with unlawful possession of firearms and terrorism which were the same charges brought before the High Court. The Uganda Law Society challenged the interference of the court process by the security personnel before the Constitutional Court of Uganda and the constitutionality of conducting prosecutions simultaneously in civilian and military courts. The Constitutional Court ruled that the interference was unconstitutional but despite that decision, the applicants were not released from detention hence they filed this reference. They claimed that the inaction of the EAC Secretary General is an infringement of the Treaty.
Respondent	SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE EAST AFRICAN COMMUNITY; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
Complainant	JAMES KATABAZI AND 21 OTHERS
Date filed
Countries	East African Community , Uganda
Keyword	Cause of action , Functions of the Secretariat , Jurisdiction , Res judicata , Rule of Law
Treaty Article	Article 23 , Article 27 , Article 29 , Article 30 , Article 6 , Article 71 , Article 8 , Articles of EAC Treaty

Verdict	The doctrine of res judicata did not apply in this case as the parties were not the same and could be said to have been litigating under the same title. While the Court will not assume jurisdiction to adjudicate on human rights disputes, it will not abdicate from exercising its jurisdiction of interpretation under Article 27 (1) merely because the reference includes allegation of human rights violation. The intervention by the armed security agents of Uganda to prevent the execution of a lawful Court order violated the principle of the rule of law and consequently contravened the Treaty. While Article 71 (1) (d) applies to this reference, without knowledge the Secretary General could not be expected to conduct any investigation and come up with a report under Article 29(1) of the Treaty.
PDF document	Download the decision as PDF
Date delivered	November 1, 2007
Quorum