A constitution according to Black’s Law dictionary are the basic principles and laws of a nation,

state or a social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain
rights to the people in it. It identifies all the elements on how a country is organised and governed.
The constitution governs the conduct of the citizens of a certain country or state by restricting them
from doing anything unlawful. In most of the countries all over the world, the fundamental laws are
contained in one document that is the ‘Constitution’. These unlawful aspects are clearly indicated in
the constitution and doing anything contrary is violation of the Constitution.. This same constitution
gives a certain amount of rights to enjoy. Some of these rights are known right away from childhood
for example a right to speech. Toddlers grow up well conversant of some of the rights that they are
supposed to enjoy and what they are supposed to do. The constitution subjects everyone to the Rule
Of Law thus no one is above the constitution or the law regardless of moral standing, social and
financial position etc. 
In Uganda we are governed by the supreme law of the land which is the 1995 Constitution. In
Article 2(1)  of the Constitution, it is provided that the constitution is the supreme law of Uganda
and shall have a binding force on all authorities and persons throughout Uganda. This means that all
the other laws made in the land are under the constitution and this depicts the supremacy of the
constitution. 
However, the constitution has to be interpreted for the fulfilment of its intended purpose and this is
through informed and guided decisions. This is done by an arm of the government which is the
Judiciary and is given the mandate to interpret the Constitution under Article 137(1) stating that
any question as to the interpretation  of this Constitution  shall be determined by the Court of
Appeal sitting as the Constitutional Court. Under Interpretation of the Constitution, different
principles are followed in order to achieve spot on interpretation in as far as outlining Government
powers plus limiting them to a certain extent and entrench the rights of the citizens.
In light of the case of Attorney General of Gambia v Momodu Jobe [AC 698 1984], the Sui generis
principle is more relevant. Sui generis means ‘in class of its own’.  Therefore in simple terms the
Constitution stands on a different footing from other legislations. It is peculiar to itself. The sui
generis rule detonates an independent legal classification of the Constitution hence being in its own
kind or class, it is made different from other laws and principles concerning its interpretation
different from other laws. It is the reason why all other laws are subjected to it and why they are
declared null and void to the extent that they are inconsistent with it as per Article 2 (2) of the
Constitution. It's why the language used in the Constitution is fairly broader and more
encompassing that that used in other laws(statutes). It is intended to cover the rights and freedoms
for the citizens without discrimination and because of the need for posterity.
The case of AG of Gambia v Momodu Jobe indicated that a Constitution, and in particular the part
that protects and entrenches Fundamental Human rights and freedoms to all people in the state have
to be entitled, given a purposive construction. In the amending of statutory provisions that are
contrary to the human rights and freedoms there is a presumption of Constitutionality. The case was
on the basis of the Sui generis rule on how the Constitution is in a Class of its own.
There are other principles followed or applied in the interpretation of the Constitution and these will
be discussed in detail as follows. Under these there is use of clear and unambiguous language.
The language used must be given a common and ordinary sense thus given a natural sense which
they had before the Constitution. It ought to be precise and easily expounded. In the case of R v El
Mann [EA 357 1969] where the main concern was whether the Republic might place evidence on
an accused person. In the defence of the accused, he stated that his rights under the provision Article
77 of the Kenyan Constitution had been infringed. The article stated that ‘an arrested person has the
right not to be compelled to make any confessions or admissions that could be used as evidence
against that person.’ The court ruled against El Mann the defendant and held that there was
ambiguity in the wording of the Provision, Article 77( now Article 49(d) ) of the constitution which
should therefore be construed according to the ordinary and natural sense of the words used and
thus didn’t protect the accused from the giving of Evidence by prosecution of information provided
by the accused before trial begun. In matters regarding clear and unambiguous language, the
Judiciary has to constitute an act of the legislature or any other document so as to determine the
intention as expressed in the words. If the words in the statute are precise and unambiguous, then
more can be necessary than to expound those words in their ordinary and natural sense. The words
in this case best declare the intention of the Law giver. This principle is also present in Tusingwire
v Attorney General [ UGSC 3 , Constitutional Application 6 2013]where it is stated that as far as
the matter of defending of the constitution by the citizens is concerned, raising petitions challenging
the Constitutionality of any Act of Parliament or any other act under any law or any omissions by
any person is allowed.
In line with that principle, the use of clear and imprecise language is also paramount in the
interpretation of the Constitution as depicted in the case of Unity Dow v Attorney General[ High
Court of Botswana Misca. 124 1990] that exposed vague and imprecise language in the in the
1984 Citizenship Act of Botswana that barred children from receiving nationality from their
mothers. The children could only get citizenship if their fathers were Botswana and not foreigners
regardless of whether they were born in Botswana. It was declared that indeed it was unclear and it
led to the passage of the 1995 Citizenship Act in Botswana.
The other principle followed is that that states that a Constitution must be interpreted as a living
document. This canon enjoins the courts to interpret the Constitution in reference to the present day
circumstances. It also means that it has to cater for both the present and the unborn generation. Still
in Unity Dow v Attorney General, it was stated that the constitution is the Supreme law of the land
and it not only is meant to serve this generation but even those yet unborn. 'The courts ought to
breathe life into it as occasion may rise to assure the healthy growth of the court through it. The
consuraction of a constitutional provision may be able to meet the designs of the society at a certain
age. It is therefore the duty of the judges to make the Constitution grow and develop in order to
meet the demands of the and aspirations of an ever developing society which is part of the the wider
society governed by acceptable concepts of human dignity.’

The Constitution hence must be capable of growth and development over time to meet the social,
economic and historical realities. The constitution must then move with time steadily and not be
destroyed by time.
The harmonisation of Conflict principle is also Fundamental and where two Constructions are
possible and one is very restrictive of the guaranteed rights and other permissive then the second
one is to be preferred of the two. In Mtikila v AG of Tanzania[ civil case 5 1993]  the Tanzanian
Constitution had granted every citizen the right to partici[ate in the governance of the country
without subscribing to a political party. An amendment was later passed which barred any citizen
from running for political office unless they were members of a recognised political party. So it was
held that when a provision of a Constitution enacting fundamental rights appears to be conflicting
another provision of the constitution, the principle of Harmonisation is put to use.  If the balancing
act should succeed, the court is enjoined to incline the realisation of fundamental rights and may for
that purpose disregard the clear words of a provision if their application would result in gross
injustice. The fundamental rights that are fundamental are not restrictions. 
In light of Fundamental rights as a principle of interpretation, Article 20(1) states that Fundamental
rights are inherent and therefore not granted by the state. This means that the Constitution is
recognizing their inherent existence to the extent that they must be looked at in a different light
from other rights created by Law. As per the case of Tinyefuza v A.g [ Constitutional petition 1
UGCC 3 1997] a statement was mentioned stating that fundamental rights are inhere in a person by
reason of his birth and therefore prior to the state and the law and it means that they are not gifts by
the state to the people.Mayindo DCJ  stated that ‘it would be highly improper to deny Tinyefuza a
hearing on technical or procedural grounds. Even if the respondent objects to the petition in this
case,they should proceed to trial on the merits unless it does not disclose a close of action at all.’
The court readily then applied the provision of Article 126(2)(e) of the constitution to administer
substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities. The constitution reconciles but does not
condemn.
The constitution must be interpreted as a whole and this can be traced back to the  US supreme
court that settled on a ground that no single provisions of the constitution is to be segregated from
the others and to be considered alone but all provisions bearing upon a particular subject are
brought into view and to be so interpreted as to effect the greater purpose of the instrument. In the
case of South Dakota v North Carolina[ 192 US 268 1940] a question was raised whether the
original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court extended to a dispute in which one state(South Dakota)
attempted to sue another state(North Carolina) for the value of bonds issued by the latter state. So
the Constitution is a wholesome legal document and all provisions must be regarded as constituting
it.The order to ascertain the true meaning and intention of the legislators, all relevant provisions
must be considered. It is therefore perilous any one particular human right provision in isolation of
all others and any court which tries to do this is bound to get an inconsistent conclusion.
All these principles are further summarised in the case of Charles Obbo & Andrew 
Muwenda[ constitutional appeal 2 UGSC 81 2004] where the appellants had been charged with
two counts of publication of false news contrary to section 50 of the Penal Code Act. They claimed
that the Charges were contrary to Articles 29(1) (a) and (b), 40(2) and 43(2) of the constitution.
This case is on the basis of Narrow Construction being preferred in a case of Derogation from
guaranteed right. In Article 44, the rights mentioned are stated as non-derogable, the rest can be
limited but power to do so is not at large. Under Article 43, it is stated that the enjoyment of the
rights and freedom prescribed in this chapter, no person shall prejudice the fundamental or other
human rights and freedom of others or the public interest.Public interest is in turn stated not to
permit among others any limitation of enjoyment of those rights beyond what is acceptable and
justifiable in a free and democratic society or what is provided in this constitution.
This therefore meant that all that a victim of infringement has to do is to plead that his right has
been violated unreasonably. Once this is done then the burden is automatically shifted to the alleged
infringer to prove that this was in circumstances reasonable and justified The judge as well as court
held that Section 50 of the Penal Code Act was inconsistent with Article 29(1)(a) and thus void. The
court concluded that where a law places a limitation on a guaranteed right, it can only be valid if it
passes the test laid down under Article 43.
The rule developed in the case defeats the  guaranteed human Rights in Tinyefuza v Ag.
In light with the Principle of Sui generis, in the Case of Attorney General v Momodu Jobe i affirm
that the constitution is in its own kind thus having its own footing but the principles that govern
legislation of private law also govern the interpretation of the Constitution and in the amendment of
statutory provisions contrary to human rights and freedoms, there is a presumption of
Constitutionality as to establish whether the statutory provisions are indeed in line with the supreme
law of the land.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
     Statute Law
• Article 2(1)
• Article 137(1)
• Article 20(1)
• Article 44
• Article 43
• Article 2(2)
      Case Law
• Unity Dow v AG[HCB Misca. 124 1990]
• R v El Mann[EA 397 1969]
• Tusingwire v AG[Constitutional application 6 UGSC 3 2013]
• Mtilika V AG of Tanzania[Civil case 5 1993]
• Tinyefuza v Ag[ Constitutional Petition 3 UGCC 3 1997]
• South Dakota v North Carolina[192 US 268 1940]
• Charles Obbo& Andrew Muwenda[Constitutional appeal 2 UGSC 81 2004]