Why Opposition MPs want age limit law annulled

Aggrieved. L-R: MPs Allan Ssewanyana, Anthony Akol, lawyer Erias Lukwago, MP Mubarak Munyagwa, Leader of Opposition Winnie Kiiza and MP Ibrahim Ssemujju after filing the petition this week. PHOTO BY ABUBAKER LUBOWA

What you need to know:

  • The orders. Through their lawyers Erias Lukwago and Ladislaus Rwakafuuzi, the MPs have listed the Attorney General as their main respondent.
  • The MPs want court to make 25 orders, top of which is to nullify the entire Constitutional Amendment Act, 2017.

On Thursday, six Opposition Members of Parliament petitioned the Constitutional Court asking for orders to nullify the recently passed Constitutional Amendment Bill (No.2), 2017, saying the process leading to its passing was unlawful.
The amendments passed in the Bill on December 20, 2017, has already been assented to by President Museveni, include majorly; the removal of Article 102(b) of the 1995 Constitution, reinstating term limits for elected leaders and also extending the term of office from five to seven years.
The MPs who are challenging the controversial law are; Gerald Karuhanga (Ntungamo Municipality), Jonathan Odur (Erute County South), Mubarak Munyagwa (Kawempe South), Ssemujju Ibrahim Nganda (Kira Municipality), Allan Ssewanyana (Makindye West) and Winfred Kiiza (Kasese Woman MP).

The petition
Through their lawyers Erias Lukwago and Ladislaus Rwakafuuzi, the MPs, who are the main witnesses, have listed the Attorney General as their main respondent.
The MPs are asking the justices of the Constitutional Court to make 25 orders, top of which is to nullify the entire Constitutional Amendment Act, 2017, basing on 17 grounds.
They also want court to find that the invasion of Parliament and heavy military deployment on the date the age limit Bill was tabled, causing violence, beating up, arresting and torturing of MPs was unlawful and undermined parliamentary independence and democracy and as such was inconsistent with and in contravention of articles 1, 3, 8A, 20, 24, 29, 79, 208(2), 209, 211(3) and 259 of the Constitution.
Among other prayers the MPs want court to find include:
The arbitrary actions of the armed forces of the Uganda People’s Defence Forces, Uganda Police Force and other militia in frustrating, restraining, preventing and stopping some Members of Parliament from attending, participating in the debate and proceedings of the House on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill was inconsistent with and in contravention of Articles 1, 8A, 20, 24, 28(1), 79, 208(2), 211(3) and 259 of the Constitution of Uganda.
The action of the Inspector General of Police Gen Kale Kayihura restricting MPs to consult only within their constituencies was unlawful, and was inconsistent with and in contravention of articles 1, 3, 8A, 20, 24, 29, 79, 208(2), 209, 211(3) and 259 of the Constitution.
It should be noted that during the consultations sanctioned by Speaker of Parliament Rebecca Kadaga, Opposition MPs opted to go into joint consultations whereas the NRM MPs agreed to consult from within the party structures. Some of the Opposition rallies at Kasubi (Rubaga North), Nateete (Rubaga south), Kyengera (Busiiro South) and others in Mbale and Lira districts were dispersed by police following directives issued earlier.
They also want court to examine the legality of the process leading to the enactment of the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 2017; the actions of Parliament to prevent members of the public with proper identification documents to access the Parliament’s gallery; ignoring the matter of prejudice in regard to already ongoing court processes in regard to the bill; the inclusion of extension of term of office; and the arbitrary actions of the Speaker of Parliament to suspend the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth Petitioners who were in attendance in the parliamentary proceedings on December18, 2017, were unlawful.
On the first day of the heated debate when the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee tabled its report, Speaker Kadaga suspended for seven sittings MPs Gerald Karuhanga, Jonathan Odur, Mubarak Munyagwa, Allan Ssewanyana, Ssemujju Ibrahim Nganda and Anthony Akol on grounds of causing commotion in the house.
Sources have since indicated that the Speaker acted on prior information that there was a group of MPs that had been organised to cause any sort of upheaval to block the reading of both the majority and minority reports.

What are the grounds?
The MPS in their 17 grounds of the petition hope that the justices of the Constitutional Court can be convinced to nullify the celebrated amendment.
The petitioners say being elected Members of Parliament and citizens of Uganda with a duty to defend the Constitution are affected by the events and process leading to “actual enactment of the purported Constitution (Amendment) Act, 2017,” contravenes the same supreme law in the preamble.
In their argument, the MPs who plan to call more witness with leave of court content that the amendment contravened Article 1 of the Constitution which gives power to the people of Uganda to determine how they shall be governed and that the authority of the State emanates from Ugandans. In other words, the petitioners argue that the MPs would have not taken the decision to amend the Article 102b of the constitution on their own.
Acts of violence and unlawful means at the times of tabling the Constitution (Amendment) Bill No. 2 of 2017 before Parliament is an another inconsistence pointed out by the petitioners saying it contravenes articles 1, 3, 8A, 20, 24, 29, 42, 44, 79, 208(2), 209, 211(3), and 259 of the Constitution of Uganda.
Under this ground, the petition filed before court reads in part as follows; “(A)that the unlawful invasion and/or heavy deployment at the Parliament by the combined armed forces of the Uganda People’s Defence Forces, the Uganda Police Force and other militia before and on the day the impugned Constitution Amendment Bill was tabled before the Parliament undermined Parliamentary independence and democracy and as such was inconsistent with and in contravention of articles 1, 3, 8A, 79, 208(2), 209, 211(3), and 259 of the Constitution of Uganda.
“(B) That the use of violence, detaining, arresting, beating up, torturing and subjecting the petitioners and other Members of Parliament to inhuman and degrading treatment by the combined armed forces of the Uganda People’s Defence Forces, the Uganda Police force and other militia on the day the motion seeking leave of Parliament to introduce the impugned Constitution Amendment Bill was tabled before Parliament amounted to amending the Constitution using violent and unlawful means, and as such was inconsistent with and in contravention of articles 1, 3, 20, 24, 29, 8A, 79, 208(2), 209, 211(3) and 259 of the Constitution of Uganda.”

Restriction by police, army
Court has also been told to look into how the restriction by the police and army on some MPs from accessing Parliament, torturing MPs during arrest, beating others while on consultations in their constituencies, stopping joint consultations, and stopping members of the public violated several Articles of the Constitution.
They also allege that the national interests and common good of the people of Uganda enshrined in the national objectives and directive principles of state policy were ignored in enacting the process.
“The petitioners contend that the process leading to and the actual enactment of the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 2017, was against the spirit and structure of the 1995 Constitution enshrined in the preamble of the Constitution, the National objectives and Directive Principles of state policy and other Constitutional provisions and as such was inconsistent with and in contravention of Articles 1, 2, 3, 8A, 79, 91 and 259 of the Constitution of Uganda.” The petition reads in part.
On questions to do with why Parliament failed to use its mandate under Article 79 that burdens the House to protect and promote the democratic governance, the petitioners invite court to find out whether Ugandans were effectively and widely consulted. They believe that without effective and wide consultations, Parliament contravened articles 1, 8A and 79 of the Constitution.
They also argue that the sections 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 2017, are inconsistent with and in contravention of articles 91, 94, 259 and 262 of the Constitution of Uganda.
According to the signed copy of the Constitutional Amendment Act, 2017, section 2 is about the extension of the term of Parliament from five to seven years, section 3 is lifts presidential age limit, section 6 extends term of local government councils to seven years and section 7 lifts age of LC 5 Chairpersons.
Granting leave to Igara West MP Raphael Magyezi to table the Constitution Amendment Bill No 2 of 2017 on the expense of other notices of motion that had been sent to the Speaker’s office earlier is an action, the petitioners also believe, amounted to procedural impropriety and a violation of articles 28, 42, 79, 91, 94 and 259 of the Constitution.
On the same ground, violations to the rules of procedure are; “irregular” gazetting of the Bill, the speaker declining to direct closure of the doors of the chambers during the time of voting, and the Speaker allowing debate a matter that was before court.
Others are; failure by the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee to report in mandatory 45 days, the actions of Parliament to include extension of term of office to seven years and restoration of term limits, and the actions of the Speaker to close debate before all MPs could debate or report their voters’ views.
On October 3, 2017, in the absence of the entire Opposition group, Mr Magyezi tabled the controversial private member’s Bill and told the House he had received the Certificate of Financial Implication from the ministry of Finance which indicates the funds that are required to institute the proposals in it are available. But the urgency at which the certificate was issued forms another ground to the filed petition.
The petitioners’ state: “That (the) purported decision by the Government of Uganda to impose an illegal charge on the consolidated fund was inconsistent with and in contravention of Article 93 of the Constitution of Uganda.”
Every MP was given Shs29m to carry out consultations in his or her constituency but the facilitation was rejected and returned by some Opposition legislators saying it was “a bribe and evil money”.
Ground 17 is about President Museveni’s decision to ignore different calls not to sign the Bill is also stated as being inconsistent with and in violation of Articles 1, 2, 3, 8A, 44(c), 79, 91, 94 and 259 of the Constitution.
President Museveni assented to the Bill on December 27, 2017, and during his end of year message four days later, he praised as “heroes” the 317 MPs who voted in favour of the amendment.
Political commentators, regime critics and Opposition politicians have said President Museveni is the sole beneficiary of the removal of the 75 years as upper cap for presidential candidates because he would not be eligible to contest in 2021 when he would be aged 77.

Grounds MPs are basing on

1. Actual enactment of the purported Constitution (Amendment) Act, 2017, contravenes Article 1 of the Constitution which gives power to the people of Uganda to determine how they shall be governed and that the authority of the State emanates from Ugandans.

2. The unlawful invasion and/or heavy deployment at the Parliament by the combined armed forces of the UPDF, police and other militia before and on the day the impugned Constitution Amendment Bill was tabled before the Parliament undermined Parliamentary independence and democracy.

3. That the use of violence, detaining, arresting, beating up, torturing and subjecting the petitioners and other Members of Parliament to inhuman and degrading treatment by the combined armed forces amounted to amending the Constitution using violent and unlawful means.

4. The petitioners contend that the process leading to and the actual enactment of the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 2017, was against the spirit and structure of the 1995 Constitution enshrined in the preamble of the Constitution.

5. The petitioners invite court to find out whether Ugandans were effectively and widely consulted.

6. Granting leave to Igara West MP Raphael Magyezi to table the Constitution Amendment Bill No.2 of 2017 on the expense of other notices of motion that had been sent to the Speaker’s office earlier is believe amounted to procedural impropriety.