94 Kabumba/Application of African Union (human rights) law in Uganda then, this was not a reference to the AU, as such, but rather to the AU Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption.10 3.2 The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights In contrast to the general silence in Ugandan case law relating to the AU, as such, there is a substantial body of judicial decisions referring to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Charter). One of the earliest decisions that referred to the African Charter was that in the 2002 case of Uganda Law Society and Jackson Karugaba v Attorney General.11 The petition challenged the constitutionality of the indictment, trial and execution – all conducted in one day, 25 March 2002 – of two soldiers of the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces, for the alleged murder of three civilians. In upholding the petition, Justice Twinomujuni, who wrote the lead judgment of the Constitutional Court, observed that during the course of the proceedings, counsel on both sides apparently thought the UPDF Act did not allow for the right of appeal against a decision of a Field Court Martial.12 To Justice Twinomujuni, this was an erroneous view, given that the African Charter was ‘part and parcel’ of the Ugandan Constitution.13 As such, article 7(1) of the Charter, which provided for the right of appeal, read together with article 45 of the Constitution (on the inexhaustibility of the Bill of Rights) created an ‘automatic’ right of appeal – including with respect to proceedings of the Field Court Martial – the denial of which was ‘clearly unconstitutional’.14 There was, however, was no unanimity on this particular point. In a separate opinion, Justice Kavuma felt that while the African Charter was ‘part of our law’, it did not by virtue of article 286 of the Constitution, ‘automatically become part of our Constitution although it remained part of the law of the land’.15 That said, in his view the Charter, as part of the law of the land, had ‘play[ed] the role of being the equivalent to an operationalizational law to article 28 of the Constitution’ and ‘[came] in handy to provide the necessary bridge between the UPDF Act and article 28 which calls for confirmation of the death sentence by the 10 11 12 13 14 15 In addition, this was not a reference in the Court’s own determination, but appears to have been an authority cited by counsel for the defendants. The plaintiff sought to assert a claim for commission. The defendants raised a preliminary objection in this regard on the ground that the plaintiff’s claim was tainted by indications of corruption and influence peddling. It was in support of this preliminary objection that the defendants cited article 4(f) of the AU Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption. Although the Court ultimately upheld this objection, it did not itself consider or apply the AU Convention. Constitutional Petitions 2 and 8 of 2002. At 26-27. At 27. At 27-28. At 47-48.