(2018) 2 African Human Rights Yearbook 121 At the same time, it bears noting that we were unable to find a case in which a Ugandan court expressly declined to rely on EACJ case law, as has been the case with the jurisprudence of the European Court.220 From this perspective, it is arguable that indifference is to be preferred to outright rejection, and that, the absence of the latter – taken together with those decisions in which EACJ authorities have in fact been relied upon – suggests that the door remains open for EACJ jurisprudence to feature even more prominently in Ugandan case law. 4.2.3 East African Legislative Assembly The East African Legislative Assembly (EALA) has been referenced in two Ugandan court decisions – about eleven years apart. In the 2006 case of Jacob Oulanyah v Attorney General,221 before the Constitutional Court, the petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Rules 11 and 12 of the Rules of Procedure of Parliament. He contended that Parliament had unlawfully delegated its responsibility to elect Ugandan members of the EALA to political parties, through their respective caucuses, a decision which did not allow for the inclusion and participation of independent MPs. The Constitutional Court upheld this contention, noting that elections conducted in such a manner were not in fact decisions of Parliament – the designated electoral college under articles 89(1) and 94(1) of the Constitution.222 The impugned rules, having been found to be in contravention of those provisions of the Constitution, were thus rendered null and void. More recently, in the 2017 High Court case of Yona Musinguzi v National Resistance Movement and Attorney General,223 the applicant sought an interim injunction restraining the Parliament of Uganda from receiving the candidates from the National Resistance Movement (NRM) party for election to the EALA pending the determination of his election petition. In dismissing the application, the High Court had in mind the need to respect Uganda’s commitments under the EAC Treaty. According to Judge Wolayo, the Court had to be mindful of the requirement, in section 4(2) of the EALA Act of 2011, for Parliament to elect representatives to EALA within 90 days of the expiry of the term of the present Parliament.224 Section 4 effectively 220 221 222 223 224 See the decision of Judge Musota in Kasha, considered in Section 4.1.3 above. Constitution Petition 25 of 2006. This decision would be cited with approval by the Constitutional Court in Dan Mugarura v Attorney General Constitutional Petition 23 of 2009, at 27. The Mugarura case involved, among others, a challenge to the power of the Appointment Committee of Parliament to approve nominees for public office (in this case the Electoral Commission), as being inconsistent with articles 60(1) and (2) of the Constitution. The Court felt that this power was consistent with the Constitution, since such power was contemplated by the Constitution itself. This situation, according to the Court, could be distinguished from that in Oulanyah in so far as, in the latter instance, the delegation of the Parliament’s power to political party causes was neither envisaged nor sanctioned by political parties. High Court Misc Appln 103 of 2017, arising from Misc Appln No.102 of 2017 and Election Petition 1 of 2017 (ruling of Judge Wolayo). At 3.