Administrative law is a branch of public law which deals with or concerns the exercise

of power, by public authorities to execute public functions. Administrative law facilitates,

regulates and controls the administrative processes. Its main thrust is to ensure that
public power isn’t abused or used as a detriment to the people. Administrative
authorities are either public officials or authorities entrusted with the duty to discharge
public functions. Public functions, are those expected to be delivered by government
which is entrusted with looking after the general welfare of the public. Administrative
tribunals are examples of administrative authorities.

Tribunals – bodies with judicial or quasi-judicial functions set up by statute and they
exist outside the usual judicial hierarchy of courts. Or, institutions setup to adjudicate
over issues of an administrative nature. They are courts of law in the sense that they
enjoy judicial powers, however, they can be distinguished from the ordinary courts of
law when one considers the membership and procedures followed by tribunals.

Reasons for Setting up Tribunals

Basing on the fact that the machinery of the courts is not suited for settling each and
every dispute which may arise out of the work of the government there is need to create
administrative tribunals.

Reasons for setting up tribunals were laid down by Lord Pierce in Anisinimic v.
Foreign Compensation Commission to include ensuring speed, cheapness and
expert knowledge;
1.            Desire for a procedure that avoids the formality of the ordinary courts.
2.            Desire for a speedy cheap and decentralized determination of a very large
number of individual cases.
3.            The need for expert and specialised knowledge on the part of the tribunal
which courts may not have despite it having a wide jurisdiction. Much as a litigation of a
particular social or economic activity, require expert knowledge and in depth
understanding of the area being regulated e.g. Labour disputes require experts in labour
law.
4.            Need to avoid the danger of imposing too many burdens to the ordinary
courts.
5.            Desire to implement new social policy.
6.            The restrictions imposed by legal restrictions, for example, there might be no
need for a precedent, the tribunals can decide these cases without these principles but
they have to be flexible in performance, approach and principle.
7.            The litigation procedure does not produce the right atmosphere for the working
of certain schemes like social insurance schemes.

Functions of Administrative Tribunals

1.            To settle disputes that may arise between individuals and public authorities,
e.g. evaluating tribunals set up to consider disputes between rent payers and local
authorities.
2.            To settle disputes between private individuals which relate to policy
implementation, e.g. rent restriction tribunals are set up under the Rent Restriction Act
which aims at regulating rent payable to property owners.
3.            To regulate socio-economic activities. This is basically regulatory with both
powers to basically settle disputes e.g. The Transport Licensing Board is a tribunal
whose main objective is to regulate the transport industry with the powers to adjudicate
over disputes over any person.
A balanced tribunal usually consists of an independent chairperson who is usually
legally qualified. InEquator Inn Ltd, v. Tomasyan it was held that a chairman means a
dully appointed chairperson and his presence is necessary before the tribunal has
quorum. In the absence of a chairman, the proceedings are a nullity.
A tribunal consists of two members representing opposed interests. In R v. Industrial
Injuries Commission Exparte Cable industrial cases involving personal injury were
heard by qualified doctors where the issue required medical diagnosis.
Procedure of Tribunals
Article 6 (1) of the Human Rights Convention states that in handling disputes, tribunals
are embedded with a duty to ensure fair and public hearing before an independent and
impartial tribunal. In De Souza v. Tanga Town Council [1961] EA 377 the right to be
heard was recognised where the proceedings were conducted in the absence of De
Souza and his lawyer. Court held that he had not been heard.
IN R v University of Cambridge where Bentley had been deprived of his degree
without giving him an opportunity to be heard, one of the judges observed that even
Adam had been called upon by God to meet the challenge of having eaten a bite of the
forbidden fruit before suffering expulsion. The act of the University was declared a
nullity.
Article 44 of the Constitution recognises the right to a fair hearing as non-derogable. All
tribunals which conduct disciplinary proceedings must give notice to the charged party
who must be given a right to be heard.
In Ridge v. Baldwin [1964] AC p.40 Herman LJ said “it is only fair play in action. It
is well established that the essential requirements of natural justice at least include that
before someone is condemned he is to have an opportunity for defending himself and in
order that you may do so he is to be made aware of the charges or allegations which he
has to meet”.
Article 42 of the Constitution provides that:  Any person appearing before any
administrative official or body has a right to be treated justly and fairly and shall have a
right to apply to a court of law in respect of any administrative decision taken against
him or her.
In Mumira Mumira v NIC [1985] Justice Karokora states that the principle of natural
justice “audi alteram partem” (right to be heard) must be observed by both judicial and
administrative tribunals. Where a decision is arrived at in utter disregard of this
fundamental principle of natural justice, that decision is a nullity. This principle involves
reception of relevant evidence, disclosure to all parties, the opportunity to examine,
cross examine witnesses and the opportunity for argument.
The tribunals’ decision must be based exclusively on the evidence given before it. It is
of the essence to understand that some tribunals have powers to summon witnesses
and to order production of document. Disobedience is a punishable offence.
Immunity and Privileges of Tribunals
Members of tribunals, parties and witnesses who appear before it are entitled to
personal immunity as applies to courts of law. Witnesses are not liable if evidence is
defamatory as well as members of the tribunal are not liable.

Article 42 of The Constitution [1][1] states that;

“Any person appearing before any administrative official or body has a right to be
treated justly and fairly and shall have a right to apply to a court of law in respect of any
administrative decision taken against him or her.”
From this article, stems a branch of public law known as administrative law.
Administrative law can thus be defined as the law relating to the control of government
power.[2][2]  All administrative authorities (that is public officials) are subordinated to
this law; right from the cabinet members to the local government authorities. Wade[3]
[3] submits that the primary purpose of subjecting them to this law is to keep the powers
of government within their legal bounds so as to protect the citizen against their abuse.
To meet this end, a couple of constitutional principles have developed over time and
these are believed, by many Jurists, to be the constitutional principles governing
administrative law. The purpose of this writing is to discuss these principles and
examine whether or not they are a reality. This task I believe I have ably executed
below.
The Doctrine of Separation of Powers.
 The modern day philosopher, Montesquieu[4][4] from whom this doctrine was
developed described government in this form;
“ In every government there three types of powers: the legislative, the executive and the
judiciary. The executive in respect of things dependant on the law of the nation and the
judiciary in regard to matters that depend on the civil law….. by virtue of the first , the
prince or magistrate enacts temporary or perpetual laws and amends and abrogates
those that have been enacted. By the second he makes peace or war, sends or
receives embassies, establishes the public security and provides against invasions. By
the third he punishes criminals or determines the disputes that arise between
individuals, the latter, we shall call judicial powers and the other simply the executive
power of the state.”
Montesquieu in this same book[5][5]  went on to define separation of powers as a
principle whereby the three organs of government as listed above are kept in separate
compartments. This means that no organ of government should exercise the functions
of the other that is the judiciary should not exercise the functions of the legislature or
executive mutatis mutandis, no organ should be in position to control the other most
especially the executive controlling the legislature and judiciary and that persons or
agencies in one organ should not be permitted to hold posts in another.
It is imperative to note at this point that this doctrine in its extreme nature is just ideal
and not only unrealistic but also undesirable. Keeping the arms of government in such
water tight compartments would easily cause stagnation in the flow of government
business because of the rigidity of the doctrine. Rather, a more practical approach to
this doctrine is applying a system of checks and balances whereby each organ operates
with the consent of the other two and the consent ought to be spontaneous not
coerced.  This is the more practical approach and to a great extent is alive in Uganda. A
classic example of these checks and balances at work is the case of Ssemwogere and
Olum[6][6]. In this case, the petitioners challenged the validity of the Constitutional
amendment Act[7][7] which sought to amend articles 88-90 of the Constitution. The bill
for the Act was passed in two days which was inconsistent with the constitution. The
constitutional court held that the amendment had been in accordance with the law but
this decision was quashed by the Supreme Court that held that the Act was null and
void because it was passed in total disregard of the Constitution. In passing such a
decision, the judiciary was able to check on the legislature’s powers and those in the
executive who pushed for this bill in Parliament especially the President who had
assented to it. However, despite advancements in this area in Uganda, this system of
checks and balances still has loop holes in Uganda for example, despite the
overwhelming evidence that the Security Minister Amama Mbabazi had exerted undue
influence in getting the National Social Security Fund to buy his land at Temangalo at
an inflated price, he was exonerated by the National Resistance Movement caucus in
Parliament and this largely believed to be because he is the Secretary General of the
National Resistance  Movement. Since the government Members of Parliament are the
most, their exonerating him caused him to get away with corruption unscathed[8][8]. 
Independence of the Judiciary
Closely related to the doctrine of separation of powers above is the independence of the
Judiciary.  Since disputes in administrative law involve public officials and public
powers, an independent judiciary is a great necessity. Independence of the judiciary
means a judiciary that makes decisions that are totally based on evidence before them
and not extraneous matters. Peter Oluyede[9][9], in expounding on this doctrine,
explained that in criminal cases, the courts should not convict or acquit because they
believe a particular verdict will please the government of the day and in civil cases,
courts ought not to consider the relevant importance of parties or even the political
consequences of their decision rather, he says, that the courts only ought to find the
facts and apply the relevant principles of law in any particular situation. In Uganda, the
judiciary is enabled to be independent by Article 128[10][10] . This Article provides that
in the exercise of judicial power courts shall not be subject to the control or direction of
any person or authority. Subsection 4 of the same goes on to provide that a person
exercising judicial power shall not be liable to any action or suit for any act or omission
by that person in the exercise of judicial power. Subsection 6 of the Article provides that
the judiciary will be self-accounting and subsection 7 that the salary, allowances and
priviledges of a judge are not to be varied to the disadvantage of a judicial officer. These
subsections and others under this Article ensure the independence of the judiciary by
providing for security of tenure, financial benefits and judicial immunity.
However, despite all these measures to ensure the independence of the judiciary, the
executive in Uganda has many times been ‘caught’ trying to undermine the position of
the judiciary. Very fresh in the memory is the “Black mamba” incident[11][11]. According
to Georgette Gagnon, deputy director of Human Rights Watch, militia men draped in
military fatigue and black T-shirts surrounded the High Court to intimidate the judges
and thwart the decision to release on bail the 22 men suspected to have been plotting
treason. This siege in November 2005 of the High Court was condemned by the
Principal Judge of Uganda as “a despicable act” and a “rape of the judiciary.” Such acts
go to prove that despite the constitutional provisions in place, once in a while the
Executive tries to intimidate the judiciary but we can say on the whole that the judiciary
has stood courageous and is independent making the independence of the judiciary a
reality in Uganda.

Rule of Law.
Rule of law simply means that everything must be done according to the law[12][12].
Therefore, every government authority that does not act which is otherwise wrong for
example taking one’s land (infringing on liberty) must justify its actions as authorized by
law. Professor Dicey[13][13] put forward that the rule of law entails absolute supremacy
of regular law, equality of all before the law and the rule according to the constitution.
Rule of law is essentially meant to create an atmosphere of law and order where the
citizen can easily enjoy liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In pursuance of this end,
the International Commission of Jurists sitting at New Dehli in 1995 suggested a code of
conduct of eight clauses some of these are looked at briefly[14][14];
Clause I essentially deals with the executive or other like agencies such as public
corporations being able to make rules having legislative character. This is happening in
Uganda as in Local Councils formulating laws[15][15].  However, to ensure proper rule
of law, this power has to be within the narrow limits stipulated by the legislature and the
extent to which must also be stipulated. This is very evident in the case of Ibingira I[16]
[16]  where it was held inter alia by the learned that the Deportation Ordinance (put in
place by the line minister) was void for being inconsistent with the provisions of the then
constitution of Uganda. Clause III says that judicial review of delegated legislation
maybe usefully supplemented by a procedure for supervision by legislature or by an
independent authority either before or after such legislation comes into effect. Clause V
provides that in general the acts of the executive when directly and injuriously affecting
the person or property or rights of the individual should be subject to review by the
courts. This was seen practically in the case of Shah V Attorney General[17][17] where
the court compelled the government to pay according to a government order which the
government had ignored. The applicant had obtained judgment against the government
for Ushs
67,500.                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                            
                         The government refused\ failed to pay and the applicant brought this
motion for an order mandamus directed to the officers responsible for the payment.  In
light of the above, rule of law is, to a great extent, a reality in Uganda. Needless to say
at times the rule of law in Uganda is abused by some individuals typified in the words of
the Coordinator Security Services in reaction to the High Court’s holding that the
General Court Martial had no jurisdiction to hear cases of terrorism[18][18]. He said,
“ … who are these fellows (the judges)? The judges have no power to order the army.
The army will not accept this business of being ordered by judges.[19][19]”
Such attitudes are some of the few things stifling the flourish of rule of law in Uganda.
Ministerial and Collective Responsibility.(Art.117)
Ministerial responsibility is a doctrine that provides that members of the Executive
should be responsible for their activities and should be accountable how they use their
powers. This may entail individual accountability to the President(Art.117) or individual
to Parliament since according to Article 118 of the Constitution Parliament can censure
a minister. This doctrine requires a minister to explain to parliament his own actions and
the actions carried out on his behalf.
For example, where a civil servant is believed to “misbehaving”, the line minister will be
called to account. His task then will be to investigate and take the appropriate
disciplinary action if necessary.  The minister will lose the confidence of parliament for
serious misconduct in his administration, if this happens, he will be required to resign or
will be dismissed. A good example of this is the time former Finance, Planning and
Investment minister Sam Kutesa was censured for being found in a situation of conflict
of interest contrary to the leadership code of conduct by allowing ENHAS (Entebbe
Handling Services) a company he chaired to buy the national carriers shares in the
cargo firm below market value and also writing off as a bad debt USD 400,000. In dong
this he caused Uganda Airlines great financial loss[20][20]. However, there times when
this doctrine fails to be realized because most times Members of Parliament are on the
government side unable to attack their own and at times they are compromised
(corrupted) to adamantly look on cabinet misconduct as was stated by one Member of
Parliament, Odongo Otto[21][21].
Collective responsibility on the other hand means that all members of the executive are
responsible for all government decisions and are to support each other on policy
matters.[22][22] This principle essentially means cabinet solidarity and is meant to
ensure that policies and decisions are made in line with the requirements of good
administration as provided for in Article 111 of the Constitution of Uganda. A celebrated
depiction of collective responsibility in Uganda is the clash between former President
Milton Obote and his Minister of Planning and Economic development, Hon.
Obwangor[23][23].  Mr. Obwangor in a speech made in the National Assembly criticized
the government proposals for a new constitution for Uganda. This was contrary to
Section 43(2) of the then constitution of Uganda which provided for collective
responsibility of cabinet members. As a result of the speech, a couple of letters were
exchanged between the two and this culminated in the dismissal of Mr. Obwangor from
cabinet. He also had to cross the floor to the opposition side of parliament. 
Key to note is that administrative justice demands some regular efficient and non-
political system of investigating individual complaints against the powers that be and
this exactly what ministerial responsibility does not provide because of its political
nature. To deal with this , administrative tribunals have been set up in Uganda and no
minister is responsible for their decisions although such decisions are subject to judicial
review. Evidence of tribunals fully functioning in Uganda with clear guidelines can be
drawn from the different cases such as Equator Inn V Tomasyan[24][24] where it was
held inter alia that the chairman’s presence is necessary before a tribunal has Coram
and that a minister has power to appoint persons to a tribunal.
Human Rights and Civil Liberties.
Human Rights are the rights a person has simply because he or she is a human
being[25][25]. These were adopted by the United Nations in 1948 observing them as the
foundation of  freedom, justice and peace in the world. It is thus a generally agreed
upon issue that  a good constitutional framework must have a Bill of Rights which
declare rights available to all in the country. This principle is very relevant to
administrative authorities because through their decisions can either let people enjoy
their inherent God-given rights[26][26] or be denied of them. As already mentioned they
are God given and thus only declared in the Ugandan constitution in Chapter four.
From a general point of view, the constitution declares equality and freedom from
discrimination in Article 21, right to life in Article 22, protection of personal liberty in
Article 23, respect for human dignity and protection from inhuman treatment in Article 24
a right to a fair hearing in Article 28 and Article 29 provides for the protection of freedom
of  conscience, expression, movement, religion, assembly and association. However,
Article 43 provides that the enjoyment of these rights may be limited where they
prejudice the rights of others or in public interest.
Over the years, Human Rights abuse has been at deplorable levels in Uganda
especially during the Amin regime[27][27]. The courts however have tried to up hold
these rights here and there as in the case of Uganda V Commissioner of Prisons, Ex
Parte Matovu[28][28] where the court defended the rights of Matovu when it held inter
alia that ;
“ the Sovereign State of Uganda would not allow anyone to be illegally detained and has
the prerogative right to enquire through its courts into anyone’s loss of liberty by issuing
a writ of habeas corpus, the procedure and nature of which was discussed.”
With the National Resistance Movement government in power, the Human Rights
record in Uganda has greatly improved but still leaves a lot to be desired as we have
witnessed unlawful killings by security forces, mob violence, torture by security
agencies, abuse of suspects, poor prison conditions and arbitrary arrests[29][29]. In a
bid to curb the gross Human Rights abuse, the  National Resistance
Movement  government when it had the 1995 Constitution promulgated established in
Article 51 the Uganda Human Rights Commission and in Article 52 provided for the
roles of the commission which can be summarized as ensuring the observance of
Human Rights in Uganda.

In analysis, the constitutional principles governing constitutional law are; rule of law,
separation of powers, independence of the judiciary, human rights, ministerial and
collective responsibility and I would submit that drawing from the above discussion
these principles are to a greater extent a reality in today’s Uganda. Of course, due to
the fact that they have to operate amongst human beings who are very complicated and
versatile beings, these principles cannot operate in their entirety or strict form; a few
compromises and balances have to be implemented to make them not only practical but
also of service in the administration of society.