Judiciary deny delivering judgment in age limit case

KAMPALA- The Judiciary has explained that the Constitutional Court is yet to deliver the much-awaited judgment on the consolidated presidential age limit petitions.

“The Judiciary has noted with concern posts on social media indicating that the Constitutional Court sitting in Mbale, delivered its verdict in the Presidential Age-Limit petitions,” a May 31 statement by Judiciary Public Relations Office reads in part.

The explanation comes after social media reports, showing pictures of the five justices of the court, standing at the entrance of Mbale High Court building in readiness to pass the judgment.

 “Please note that following the hearing of these consolidated petitions between April 9 and 19, 2018, the Deputy Chief Justice and head of Constitutional Court pronounced that the court would deliver its judgment on notice,” the statement reads.

To that effect, the Judiciary has promised to alert all the concerned parties in the matter and the general public in advance, once the judgment is ready.

“As per the usual court practice, all the parties in the petitions shall be notified in advance of the judgment date through their counsel in advance as soon as the court is ready. Given the importance of the matter, the general public will equally be notified through the media and arrangements would be made for the media to cover the delivery of the judgment at the Mbale High Court,” the Judiciary said.

As a way forward, the Judiciary has advised members of the to disregard the “misleading information on social media relating to the judgment” as they await for an official communication.

A panel of five justices led by Deputy Chief Justice, Mr Alfonse Owiny-Dollo, heard and concluded the high profile consolidated petitions on April 19.

The other justices on the panel are; Remmy Kasule, Elizabeth Musoke, Cheborion Barishaki and Kenneth Kakuru.

The Uganda Code of Judicial Conduct Manual, demands that on conclusion of hearing a case with the judgment being reserved, the court is mandated to deliver its decision within a period of two months thereafter.

This means that the court has about three weeks to pass judgment.

The five petitioners are among other issues, challenged the entire process that led to the amendment of the Constitution that saw the removal of the presidential upper cap age limit of 75 years and the lower age cap limit of 35 years. 

The petitioners said the entire amendment process was marred by violence, intimidation, abuse of fundamental human rights, general mayhem, security officers evading Parliament and assaulting MPs.

Before its amendment, the Constitution would automatically bar President Yoweri Museveni from vying for the country’s top seat since he would be above the age of 75 years at the next general elections.

The petitioners also challenged the extension of the office term of the president, parliament and local government councils from five to seven years.

The extension of the Presidential term, however, has to be subjected to a referendum.

The petitioner’s summary prayer is for court to annul the whole age limit law that was assented to by Mr Museveni early this year.

14 issues that court must determine

1. Whether sections 2 and 8 of the age limit Act extending or enlarging the term of Parliament from 5 years to 7 are unconstitutional.

2. If so, whether applying it retroactively is unconstitutional.

3. Sections 6 and 10 of the Act extending the current term local government councils from 5 years to 7 unconstitutional.

4. If so, whether applying it retroactively is unconstitutional.

5. Whether the alleged violence/scuffle inside and outside Parliament during the enactment of the Act was unconstitutional.

6. The entire process of conceptualising, consulting, debating and enacting the Act was unconstitutional.

7. The alleged failure by Parliament to observe its own Rules of Procedure during the enactment of the Act is true and if so, whether it was unconstitutional.

8. Passing the Act without observing 14 sitting days of Parliament between the 2nd and 3rd reading was unconstitutional.

9. The president’s assent to the Bill allegedly in absence of a certificate of compliance from the Speaker and a certificate from the Electoral Commission was unconstitutional

10. Section 5 of the Act, which reintroduces term limits and entrenches them as subject to a referendum is unconstitutional.

11. Section 9 of the Act, which seeks to harmonise the seven year term of Parliament with the President’s term is unconstitutional.

12. Sections 3 and 7 of the Act, lifting the presidential age limit are unconstitutional.

13. Whether President Museveni should vacate office of Presidency upon clocking 75 years of age despite his 5-year term still running.

14. Remedies available to the parties