In interpreting our Constitution this court must not lose sight of our chequered history on human rights. The framers of the Constitution had this in mind when they stated in the preamble:“Recalling our history which has been characterized by political and constitutional instability; Recognizing our struggle against the forces of tyranny, oppression and exploitation; Do hereby, in and through this constituent Assembly solemnly adopt, enact and give to ourselves and our posterity, this Constitution of the Republic of Uganda………..” In De Clerk & Snot – vs – Du Plassis & Another [1990] 6 BLR 124 at p.128 the Supreme Court of South Africa no doubt bearing in mind their own past chequered history of human rights abuses stated:“When interpreting the Constitution and more particularly the bill of rights it has to be done against the backdrop of our chequered and repressive history in human rights field. The state by legislative and administrative means curtailed……….the human rights of most of its citizens in many fields while the courts looked powerless. Parliament and Executive reigned Supreme. It is this malpractice which the bill of rights seeks to combat. It does so by laying down ground rules for state action which may interfere with the lives of its citizens. There is now a threshold which the state may not cross. The Courts guard the door.” [emphasis mine] This case was cited with approval in Major General Tinyefuza – Vs Attorney General Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997 (Supreme Court) per order, JSC. …… the powers of this court in statutory interpretation are not limitless or absolute. The limits were expounded by Wallen, CJ. in the Supreme Court of the United States in Troop – Vs Dulles 35 6 US 86 2L Ed. 785 at 590 (1956):“In concluding as we do that the eighth Amendment forbids congress to punish by taking away citizenship. We are mindful of the gravity of the issue inevitably raised whenever the Constitutionality of an Act of the National Legislature is challenged. No member of the Court believes that in this case the statute before us can be construed to avoid the issue of Constitutionality. The issue confronts us, and the task of resolving it is inescapably ours. The task requires the exercise of judgment, not the reliance on personal preferences. Courts must not consider the wisdom of statutes but neither can they sanction as being merely unwise that which the constitution forbids. We are oath bound to defend the Constitution. This obligation requires that congressional enactments be judged by the standards of the Constitution. The 27