Age Limit petitioners query Sh29m share to MPs

Petitioners lawyers say Parliament breached article 93 of the Constitution by drawing money from the consolidated fund for Rapheal Magyezi Bill.

Mbale, Uganda | URN | Funds spent on consultations for the removal of the Presidential age limit from the constitution have been raised as a matter of contention at the hearing of a petition seeking to overturn the 2017 Constitutional Amendment.

The government spent up to 13 billion Shillings on the consultations. Each Member of Parliament received up to 29 million Shillings to consult their constituents about the Private Member’s Bill which was tabled by Igara West MP, Raphael Magyezi.

Through the bill, members of Parliament lifted the cap on the Presidential age from the 75, which was provided for under the 1995 constitution, reintroduced Presidential term limits and extended the term of Office for the President, Parliament and Local governments from five to seven years.

Now Lawyers representing the petitioners say that the decision to draw the said money from the consolidated fund was irregular and contravened article 93 of the 1995 constitution. The article, as amended, restricts Parliament from withdrawing funds from the consolidated fund to finance a private Member’s Bill.

The Petitioners’ lawyer, Erias Lukwago submitted that Members of Parliament were adequately facilitated and that there was no need to illegally fund them with extra money. He equated drawing the extra funds to theft.

Lukwago asked the judges on the panel led by Justice Alphonse Owiny-Dollo to overturn the 2017 Constitution Amendment Act basing on the fact that public funds were illegally drawn to fund processes leading to its enactment.

But all did not go well with Lukwago as the Judges interjected with seemingly guiding questions. Justice Alphonse Owiny-Dollo was the first to seek clarifications from Erias Lukwago, wondering whether there is any law that prohibits Parliament from giving money to MPS for consultation.

Justice Kenneth Kakuru said the argument whether the money was given to MPS may not arise.

Also submitting on the same issue, Lawyer James Byamukama on behalf of the petitioners said the Secretary to the Treasury had granted a certificate of financial implication only providing for the deletion of article 102(b) regarding the age limits.

Muhakanizi’s clearance had indicated that the deletion of article 102 was budget neutral and therefore did not have financial implications. Muhakanizi is one of the government officials lined up for cross-examination.

James Byamukama submitted that the fact parliament sneaked through a number of other issues other than what was provided for in the certificate of financial implication, was a breach of article 93 of the constitution.

They argue that the government should have taken over the Bill from Raphael Magyezi with the introduction of a clause for extension of the term of office for President, Parliament and Local governments and reintroduction of term limits.

Male Kiwanuka, on the other hand, said he discovered the second certificate of financial implication was submitted on December 20. He, however, insists that the Speaker shouldn’t have allowed Raphael Magyezi to proceed with the motion with or without a certificate of financial implication from the government.

The Attorney General represented by Mwesigwa Rukutana and several other lawyers from his chambers are yet to submit on the matter.