The Independent Uganda: You get the Truth we Pay the Price
Age limit petition: Parliament flouted procedures-Petitioners’ lawyers tell judges
Mbale, Uganda | GODFREY SSALI | Five Constitutional court Justices presiding over the age limit petition at Mbale have heard that the whole process of conceptualizing, debating and passing of the Age-Limit Bill in Parliament was marred with irregularities.
Lead counsel representing the petitioners Wandera Ogalo has told court that while the Igara East MP Raphael Magyezi was moving the age -limit bill, he did not put into consideration the core concerns of Ugandans relating to principles of orderly succession and peaceful transfer of power.
While making his submissions, Ogalo referred court to the recommendations of a constitutional review commission that was chaired by former chief justice Benjamin Odoki in 1995 which made wide consultations and among other things Ugandans singled out successful transfer of power and orderly succession as being key.
Ogalo has cited the country’s History characterized by coup- d’états from 1966 when president Muteesa’s palace was attacked , burnt down and he sent to exile, then 1979 when president Idi Amin was toppled until 1986 when the NRA threw Obote out of power.
The petitioners now say since Uganda has never had a peaceful transfer of presidential power, parliament ought to have taken into account the concerns of Ugandans before proposing to lift the Age- limit.
Earlier, Before Wandera Ogalo made this submission, one of the petitioners; Male Mabirizi Kiwanuka applied to court to have the affidavits of the Secretary to Treasury Keith Muhakanizi and Chief of defense forces General David Muhoozi struck off the record for containing hear say evidence.
Mabirizi submitted that the law governing the evidence Act states that a witness should only depone and state facts to a matter he has seen with his own 2 eyes.
Yesterday Both Muhakanizi and Muhoozi appeared before this court and testified that they were just briefed by other persons on the events that took place in Parliament during the Age – limit debate.
Government lawyers defend law
However, the deputy attorney general Mwesigwa Rukutana and his team including Henry Oluka and the legal team of parliament argued that all articles included or deleted such as the restoration of term limits and removal of presidential age limit were done in accordance with the rules of procedure in parliament, and also followed constitutional provisions on amendments.
The panel of five judges led by the deputy chief justice Owiny Dollo prodded Oluka on the justification for removing the age limits.
Meanwhile, Justice Elizabeth Kibuuka Musoke wondered whether removing the age limits will encourage more people to contest for the presidency.
Counsels for the petitioners Wandera Ongalo, and Erias Lukwago made submissions that the 317 legislators passed the constitutional amendment bill number two without following rules of procedure and breached constitutional provisions. Ongalo argued that the amendments could prevent a peaceful power transition.
Lukwago claimed that police blocked consultations and political participation of certain legislators on the orders of AIGP Asuman Mugyenyi including the entire Lango sub-region, Kiira municipality, Rubaga North, Makindye West, Busiro East and some individual MPs were beaten and thereby unable to consult in a multiparty dispensation.
Justice Kenneth Kakuru said Lukwago’s submissions imply that parliament cannot amend the constitution minus consulting the public.
Later, one of the petitioners Male Mabirizi Kiwabuka who is representing himself said the court should nullify the constitutional amendment due to inconsistencies in the issuance of the certificate of compliance that informed the president’s decision to assent to the bill.
