The political question doctrine prevents courts from deciding issues that are essentially political in nature and are the purview of the executive branch. It has its roots in an 1803 US Supreme Court case and has been used in Uganda since independence to stifle human rights. Several Ugandan court cases have invoked the political question doctrine to dismiss cases involving executive actions and decisions on technicalities, even when executive power has exceeded its bounds. The doctrine remains an impactful limitation on judicial review of political matters.

1. POLITICAL QUESTION
DOCTRINE.(PQD)
PRESENTATION BY:- KIZZA ARNOLD LUMINSA.

2. DEFINITION OF THE PQD.
• According to the Blacks law dictionary by Henry Campbell Black and others 6th
edition, 1990 page 1158 defines the PQD as:-
• Questions of which Courts will refuse to take cognizance or to decide on
account of their purely political character or because their determination would
involve an encroachment upon the executive or the legislative power.
• According to the Duhaimes law dictionary, PQD is defined as:-
• A doctrine which prevents a court from determining issues which are essentially
political with the purview of the executive branch of government.

3. TECHNICALITIES.
• Technicalities are procedures which bring order to the business of the court and
weed out matters that waste the courts time.
• They form part of the procedures which bring order to the business of the courts
and weed out matters that are frivolous or a waste of court time. In the words of
Tanzanian Chief Justice Mohamed Chande Othman, “Without
procedures, chaos would reign and litigation
would be endless.
• These technicalities and the PQD have an impact on Human rights, the freedoms of
expression, association and assembly as enshrined in Article 29 of the 1995
constitution of the republic of Uganda but technicalities and PQD have a long
history of being used to stifle these rights.

4. HISTORY OF THE PQD.
• The PQD has its roots in the 1803 US Supreme Court decision
of Marbury v. Madison, but has had a profound effect on Ugandan
jurisprudence since soon after independence.
• In this case, the Chief Justice John Marshall of the united states supreme
court said “The province of court is, solely, to decide on the rights of
individuals not to inquire how the executive or the executive officers
perform duties in which they have discretion. Questions, in their nature
political or which are by the constitution and laws, submitted to the
executive, can never be made in this court.”

5. OTHER MANIFESTATIONS OF THE PQD.
• In the case of Ex parte Matovu vs Uganda, [1966]. This case had a progressive element as
far as the issue of technicalities was concerned. The case opened with several technical
objections from the Attorney General, who argued that the documents bringing the
petition were defective and it should thus be dismissed. In response, the court agreed
that the application was defective.
• In this case, Chief Justice Udo Udoma reverted to the same principle in the
following words:
… any decision by the judiciary as to the legality of the government would be
far reaching, disastrous and wrong because the question was a political one to
be resolved by the executive and the legislature which were accountable to the
constitution, but a decision on the validity of the constitution was distinguishable
and with the court`s competence.
• The Udoma panel in Matovu’s case effectively provided legal cover for what was plainly a
coup d’état. What followed was the denial of judicial power especially when confronted
by executive excess.

6. ANOTHER CASE ON PQD.
• In El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Co. v. US, Justice Thomas Griffiths of the
United States Court of Appeals has before him this set of facts:
• "In 1998, the President of the United States ordered a missile strike against a
pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that he believed was connected to the terrorist
activities of Osama bin Laden. The owners of the plant sued the United States,
challenging several allegedly defamatory statements made by senior executive
branch officials justifying the strike as well as the government's failure to
compensate them for the destruction of the plant.“
• The Court confirmed the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it
presents a nonjusticiable political question.

7. OTHER CASES ON PQD.
• In the case of Grace Stuart Ibingira &
Others v Uganda, which concerned
the detention of several former
Cabinet ministers in the Obote-
1government, the court ignored the
many defects in a detention order and
in the emergency regulations
subsequently passed to validate it
because of the fear of the
repercussions from the Executive.
• . In Odongkara & Others v. Kamanda
& Another, the court dismissed the
application with costs simply
because the notice of motion by
which the action was brought did
not sufficiently set out the grounds
on which it was made.

8. OTHER CASES ON PQD.
• In the 1969 case of Opoloto v.
Attorney General, the Court upheld
the summary dismissal of the
applicant as Commander of the
Uganda Army on the grounds that
the President enjoyed prerogative
powers of the dismissal of civil
servants and service officers without
cause.
• In the case of Andrew Lutakoome
Kayira & Paulo Ssemogerere v.
Edward Rugumayo & Others,
concerning the legality of the
removal of Prof. Yusuf K. Lule from
the presidency. There, the court
upheld the supremacy of the 1967
Constitution and declared that the
power to make ministerial
appointments vested solely in the
President.

9. REFERENCES.
• Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)
• Bancoult v. McNamara, 445 F. 3d 427 (2006; Note 2)
• El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Co. v. US, 559 F. 3d 578 (2009)
• Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
• Omar v. Harvey, 479 F. 3d 1 (2007)
• Schneider v. Kissinger, 412 F. 3d 190 (2005; Note 1)
• Totes-Isotoner Corp. v. US, 569 F. Supp. 2d1315 (2008)
• BY :-KIZZA ARNOLD LUMINSA(KAL).