The Government side has concluded defending the Constitutional Court decision
that removed the Presidential Age Limit, by asking the 7 Justices of the
Supreme court to uphold the same finding of the lower Court.
The Government Team led by Attorney General William Byaruhanga has asked the
Chief Justice to dismiss the Appeal with costs for lack of merit.
Byaruhanga has even accused one of the Appellants Hassan Male Mabirizi of
filing his petition before the Age Limit Bill was was passed into
According to the Attorney General Mabirizi had no cause of action
by then and therefore his appeal cannot stand.
However in his final reply Mabirizi says the acts he complains of both in his
Constitutional court Petition and the. Appeal before the Supreme court, started
way back at the time of tabling and conceptualizing the entire bill before it
was assented to by the President.
Therefore the Attorney General ought to have come up with this
application before hearing of the Appeal commenced, and not ambush at the
Parties closing remarks.
Meanwhile Uganda Law Society another Appellant, through Senior Lawyer Wandera
Ogalo says the Supreme Court should make a decision barring Parliament
from doing acts, they very well know are wrong from the onset, then later
Petition Courts to nullify them.
He cited an example where the Deputy Attorney General Mwesigwa Rukutana warned
Parliament not to proceed on an entrecthed Article regarding the
re-instatement of Term -limits, which requires a referendum, but
Parliament never heeded to his advise.
As for the Opposition MPs, their Lawyer Erias Lukwago concluded by inviting
their Lordships to nullify the entire bill and save the Country from what they
have termed as another catstrophy that offends several provisions of the
The Appellants on the whole have urged the Supreme court to clarify its own
orders and recommendations made during the 2016 Amama Mbabazi
The Chief Justice Bert Katureeba has announced that judgement shall be
delivered on notice to the Parties.
He warned Mabirizi not to drag him to the East African Court of Justice
when he fails to deliver the judgement in the required 60days.
He says the Appellate Court has 7 Justices and each Judge comes up with
his/ her own Judgement which must be read through by other justices.
He said it might take time but they will endeavour to deliver the judgement as
soon as possible.
The Chief Justice however thanked Hassan Male Mabirizi that even though he is
not an Advocate, he has enriched the submissions at the bar, and promised to
also take up his concerns of waiving on the filing fees in the Supreme court.
In the morning session, the Chief Justice Bert Katureebe has
tasked the Attorney General of Governmemt, William Byaruhanga to adress
the Court in light of the Appellants’ fear that the removal of the
Presidential Age -Limit was not meant to benefit the incumbent President.
The Chief Justice also informed Byaruhanga that after the removal
of the Term -Limits , the only Pillar to that Article was only the Age –
Katureebe noted that much as Parliament has powers to make laws under the
Constitution, it must done within the spirit of Peace, Order, Development and
Good Governance of the Nation.
Chief Justice’s intervention came after the Attorney General submitted that
A(102b) regarding the Presidential Age-Limit is not one of the Articles that
needs approval of Citizens to be amended by Parliamnet.
However the Attorney General in his reply mantained that Parliamnet is vested
with powers to amend the Constitution on behalf of the Public except on
entrecthed articles which require referendum, and Article 102b is not
That the fears of the Appellants is their contention and he has too made his
submission very clear.
On the other hand his Deputy Mwesiga Rukutana has also faced it rough when he
was asked by the Chief Justice, what he would have advised the
President, if he (M7) had called him before signing the bill.
Rukutana instead threw the entire Courtroom into laughter when he
submitted that he would have advised the President to sign it into Law
and wait for a Constitutional Petition challenging it.