The Independent Uganda: You get the Truth we Pay the Price
Mbale, Uganda | THE INDEPENDENT | The hearing of submissions in the petition into the constitutionality of the Constitutional Amendment Act 2018 drew to the close on Thursday.
The Attorney General’s chambers and petitioner’s lawyers spent the entire day summing out their submissions at the court sitting in Mbale.
The Constitution Amendment Act (1) 2018 emanated from a Private Member’s Bill tabled by Igara West MP, Raphael Magyezi. Its enactment removed the age limit limitation for the President and Members of Parliament.
It also extended the term of office of the current and future parliaments, and Local governments to seven years. It also reintroduced the Presidential term limits Seven parties petitioned court seeking the nullification of the now contentious law.
They include Uganda Law Society, Male Kiwanuka Mabirizi, Leader of the Opposition in Parliament Winfred Kiiza, opposition chief whip Ssemujju Ibrahim Nganda and four other MPS represented by City lawyers Erias Lukwago and Ladislaus Rwakafuuzi.
The petitioners represented by several lawyers led by Dan Wandera Ogallo summed up with the call on the judges to overturn the law saying its enactment was in violation of the constitution.
They further argued that the President did not follow the law when he assented to it in late December 2017 in absence of valid certificates of compliance from Parliament.
The petition has delved much on whether or Parliament the Executive violated Article 93 of the Constitution when it spent 13 billion shillings to facilitate a Private Members Bill.
The panel led by the Head of the Constitutional Court, Justice Alphonse Owiny-Dollo that has for almost two weeks been hearing into the petition is expected to pass its verdict on whether to entirely overturn the contested law or to uphold part of it based on evidence submitted by the two sides.
Justice Owiny-Dollo raised one dilemma to be faced by his panel going by the pleadings by the petitioners that the entire Act should be annulled.
Justice Owiny-Dollo had interrupted acted into the final pleadings by one of the Lawyers, James Byamukama as he made the case on why the petition should be upheld
Byamukama replied that while the petitioners want the entire statute struck out, the alternative prayers for the court to extricate issues that were wrongly included in the law under contention.
He however maintained that everything right from the presentation of the Raphael Magyezi bill was defective and that there is nothing to save in the enacted law.
The judges are also expected to rule on whether the petitioners and their lawyers should be should awarded costs regarding costs.
The issue of costs from the petitioners’ side submitted by Ladislaus Rwakafuuzi. He asked the court to award costs to the petitioners that include Uganda Law Society, a private Citizen. Male Kiwanuka Mabirizi and the MPs for having petitioned the court on a public interest matter.
The issues on whether costs should be awarded the petitioners remains contentious even through past constitutional and Supreme Court petitions especially in the past presidential election petitions.
Owinyi-Dollo asked Rwakafuuzi what would happen in terms of damages in the unlikely event that the court decided to uphold the entire statutes as passed by Parliament on 20th December 2018.
He pleaded that the court should find the petition was not frivolous, vexatious and that the petitioners would still be awarded costs for bringing up a serious constitutional issue.
Male Mabirizi cause laughter in court when he sprung up equally demanding for costs related to the expenditure he has incurred while representing himself at court in Mbale.
The Deputy Attorney General, Mwesigwa Rukutana backed by lawyers from his Chambers and those from the Parliamentary Commission have put up a spirited fight in defense of the Bill.
Rukutana and his team argued that it was validly enacted and that the petitioners have not adduced evidence to the effect the constitution of Parliament’s rules of procedure were violated.
The hearing was still going on as the Attorney General’s side continued with pleadings in defense of the Speaker of Parliament and the processes leading to the enactment of the Constitution Amendment Bill 2017.
The judges had from the beginning promised to hear into the matter and deliver their verdict expeditiously.
****
URN
