解释1995年以前的法律,使其符合乌干达宪法:法院依靠《宪法》第274条保护人权

J. D. Mujuzi
{"title":"解释1995年以前的法律,使其符合乌干达宪法:法院依靠《宪法》第274条保护人权","authors":"J. D. Mujuzi","doi":"10.17159/1996-2096/2022/v22n2a9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Article274 of the Ugandan Constitution (1995) provides that laws that existed at the time of the entry into force of the Constitution 'shall be construed with such modifications, adaptations, qualifications and exceptions as may be necessary to bring it in conformity with this Constitution'. The jurisprudence from Ugandan courts shows that they have adopted three approaches to give effect to article 274 and, as a result, protected human rights such as the right to equality (freedom from discrimination), property, human dignity, liberty and the right to bail. The first approach is for the court to read word(s) into the impugned legislative provision without any deletions. This is done in one of the two ways: by either reading these words expressly into the impugned legislation, or by doing so impliedly. The second approach is for the court to strike out words from the impugned provision and replace these with new words. According to this approach, the court either adds a few words or overhauls the entire provision. It is argued that overhauling a legislative provision is beyond the mandate of the court's power under article 274 and it ignores the principle of separation of powers in terms of which Parliament has the role to make laws. The third approach is for the court to 'strike out' or 'read out' words from the impugned legislation without replacing them. Although the Constitutional Court is the only court with the mandate to declare legislation inconsistent with the Constitution (under article 137), other courts have invoked article 274 to declare legislation unconstitutional, thus usurping the powers of the Constitutional Court. Is it argued that the Constitution may have to be amended so that other courts, other than the Constitutional Court, are also empowered to declare legislation unconstitutional on condition that such declaration takes effect after it has been confirmed by the Constitutional Court. A similar approach has been followed in other African countries such as South Africa.","PeriodicalId":36136,"journal":{"name":"African Human Rights Law Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Construing pre-1995 laws to bring them in conformity with the Constitution of Uganda: Courts' reliance on article 274 of the Constitution to protect human rights\",\"authors\":\"J. D. Mujuzi\",\"doi\":\"10.17159/1996-2096/2022/v22n2a9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Article274 of the Ugandan Constitution (1995) provides that laws that existed at the time of the entry into force of the Constitution 'shall be construed with such modifications, adaptations, qualifications and exceptions as may be necessary to bring it in conformity with this Constitution'. The jurisprudence from Ugandan courts shows that they have adopted three approaches to give effect to article 274 and, as a result, protected human rights such as the right to equality (freedom from discrimination), property, human dignity, liberty and the right to bail. The first approach is for the court to read word(s) into the impugned legislative provision without any deletions. This is done in one of the two ways: by either reading these words expressly into the impugned legislation, or by doing so impliedly. The second approach is for the court to strike out words from the impugned provision and replace these with new words. According to this approach, the court either adds a few words or overhauls the entire provision. It is argued that overhauling a legislative provision is beyond the mandate of the court's power under article 274 and it ignores the principle of separation of powers in terms of which Parliament has the role to make laws. The third approach is for the court to 'strike out' or 'read out' words from the impugned legislation without replacing them. Although the Constitutional Court is the only court with the mandate to declare legislation inconsistent with the Constitution (under article 137), other courts have invoked article 274 to declare legislation unconstitutional, thus usurping the powers of the Constitutional Court. Is it argued that the Constitution may have to be amended so that other courts, other than the Constitutional Court, are also empowered to declare legislation unconstitutional on condition that such declaration takes effect after it has been confirmed by the Constitutional Court. A similar approach has been followed in other African countries such as South Africa.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36136,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"African Human Rights Law Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"African Human Rights Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17159/1996-2096/2022/v22n2a9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Human Rights Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17159/1996-2096/2022/v22n2a9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

乌干达宪法(1995年)第274条规定,在宪法生效时存在的法律“应通过必要的修改、调整、限制和例外来解释,以使其符合本宪法”。乌干达法院的判例表明,它们采取了三种方法来执行第274条,从而保护了诸如平等权(不受歧视的权利)、财产权、人的尊严、自由和保释权等人权。第一种方法是法院对被质疑的立法条款进行逐字逐句的解读,不做任何删节。这可以通过以下两种方式之一来实现:要么明确地将这些话解读为受到质疑的立法,要么含蓄地解读。第二种方法是法院从受到质疑的条款中删去一些词语,并用新的词语取而代之。根据这种做法,法院要么增加几句话,要么对整个条款进行全面修改。有人认为,修改一项立法规定超出了第274条规定的法院权力的授权范围,而且它忽视了三权分立原则,根据三权分立原则,议会具有制定法律的作用。第三种方法是法院从被质疑的立法中“剔除”或“读出”某些词,而不替换它们。虽然宪法法院是唯一有权宣布立法不符合《宪法》的法院(根据第137条),但其他法院援引第274条宣布立法违宪,从而篡夺了宪法法院的权力。有人认为,有必要修改宪法,以便宪法法院以外的其他法院也有权宣布立法违宪,但这种宣布必须在宪法法院确认后生效。南非等其他非洲国家也采取了类似的做法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Construing pre-1995 laws to bring them in conformity with the Constitution of Uganda: Courts' reliance on article 274 of the Constitution to protect human rights
Article274 of the Ugandan Constitution (1995) provides that laws that existed at the time of the entry into force of the Constitution 'shall be construed with such modifications, adaptations, qualifications and exceptions as may be necessary to bring it in conformity with this Constitution'. The jurisprudence from Ugandan courts shows that they have adopted three approaches to give effect to article 274 and, as a result, protected human rights such as the right to equality (freedom from discrimination), property, human dignity, liberty and the right to bail. The first approach is for the court to read word(s) into the impugned legislative provision without any deletions. This is done in one of the two ways: by either reading these words expressly into the impugned legislation, or by doing so impliedly. The second approach is for the court to strike out words from the impugned provision and replace these with new words. According to this approach, the court either adds a few words or overhauls the entire provision. It is argued that overhauling a legislative provision is beyond the mandate of the court's power under article 274 and it ignores the principle of separation of powers in terms of which Parliament has the role to make laws. The third approach is for the court to 'strike out' or 'read out' words from the impugned legislation without replacing them. Although the Constitutional Court is the only court with the mandate to declare legislation inconsistent with the Constitution (under article 137), other courts have invoked article 274 to declare legislation unconstitutional, thus usurping the powers of the Constitutional Court. Is it argued that the Constitution may have to be amended so that other courts, other than the Constitutional Court, are also empowered to declare legislation unconstitutional on condition that such declaration takes effect after it has been confirmed by the Constitutional Court. A similar approach has been followed in other African countries such as South Africa.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
African Human Rights Law Journal
African Human Rights Law Journal Social Sciences-Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Public participation as an essential requirement of the environmental rule of law: Reflections on South Africa's approach in policy and practice The right to development in Francophone Africa: Post-colonial agreements, sovereign authority and control over natural resources The prospects of litigation to secure maternal health in Nigeria: Does SERAP v Attorney-General Lagos have any value? Traditional leadership in South Africa: From blood and might usurpation to constitutional accountability The Mariana Trench of transphobia in South Africa: The legislative lacunae in KOS v Minister of Home Affairs
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1