The petitioner is an NGO interested in the matters stated in the petition below which are in violation of the Constitution of Uganda 1995 and the binding international human rights law. The main concerns of the petitioners include the following: (a)That the custom and practice of Female Genital Mutilation as practiced by several tribes in Uganda is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995 to the extent that it violates Articles 2(2) 21(1), 24, 27(2) 32(2) and 33 thereof. (b)As a result of this violation, the custom and practice of Female Genital Mutilation should be declared null and void and unconstitutional. The court had, hence, to rule on two major issues namely: (1) Whether the custom and practice of female genital mutilation is unconstitutional. (2) Whether the custom and practice of female genital mutilation should be declared null and void. The petition was supported by a number of affidavits sworn by some five individuals. The Attorney General who was the respondent had earlier denied liability and contended that the petition discloses no cause of action. The respondent had not violated any provisions of the Constitution. The petition was misconceived and did not raise any matter that required interpretation of the Constitution under Article 137(1)(3)(a) and (d) of the Constitution of Uganda and Rule 3 of the Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules. When the petition was called for hearing the Senior State Attorney Patricia Mutesi intimated to Court that the Attorney General did not wish to contest the petition. I am in full agreement with Mr. Rwakafuzi, counsel for the petitioners that the respondent conceded to the petition and had, hence, succeed. The Court did not consider it necessary to proceed with the hearing. In any case there was sufficient documentary and affidavit evidence on record which could be relied on for a decision. The petition was hence adjourned for judgment on notice. I had the advantage of reading in draft the judgment prepared by Twinomujuni, JA, he ably set out the background, the law and he correctly evaluated the evidence with which I concur. I have nothing useful to add. Furthermore, it should also be noted that this judgment is more for the purposes of putting the record right, because whilst the petition was pending in this Court, Parliament passed and assented to the Bill outlawing the practice of Female Genital Mutilation. Since all the justices on the Coram agree with the lead judgment the petition is allowed with the declarations and orders prayed for by the petitioner. Dated at Kampala this...28th...day of .....July....2010. L.E.M. Mukasa-Kikonyogo DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE HEAD OF COURT OF APPEAL &