A comment on the recent Constitutional Court ruling on age limit petition

I recently returned from abroad where I was when the age limit petition judgment was delivered by the Constitutional Court. I am fully aware that there is a notice to appeal against the final ruling by diverse parties.
However, I read in the Daily Monitor of July 27 what each judge of the Constitutional Court said verbatim about each of the issues framed as follows.
1. On whether extending the term of Parliament to seven years is in contravention of the Constitution, all the five judges found it was unconstitutional.
2. And if so, whether applying it retroactively is inconsistent with the Constitution, all the five judges found it was unconstitutional.
3. Whether extending the life of the Local Councils to seven years is inconsistent with the Constitution, all the five judges found it unconstitutional.
4. Whether the alleged violence inside Parliament was inconsistent with the Constitution, the judges were again unanimous that it did not.
5. Whether the entire process of consulting, debating and enacting the Act was illegal, only Justice Kakuru said that it was illegal.
6. Whether the alleged failure by Parliament to observe its own rules during the enactment was illegal, the five judges were unanimous that it was illegal.
7. Whether passing the Act without observing 14 sitting days of Parliament was illegal, all the judges, except Deputy Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo said it was illegal.
8. Whether the presidential assent to the Bill allegedly in absence of a certificate of compliance from the Speaker was unconstitutional, the courts unanimously confirmed that it was unconstitutional.
9. Whether Section 5 of the Act, which reintroduces term limits is unconstitutional, the court was again unanimous that it was unconstitutional.
10. Whether Section 9 of the Act, which seeks to harmonise the seven years term of Parliament with Parliament term is unconstitutional, the court was again unanimous that it was unconstitutional.
11. Whether lifting the age limit is unconstitutional, only Justice Kakuru agreed with it.
12. Whether a president should leave office on clocking 75 years despite his/her term of office is still ongoing, the court was unanimous and I agree with them because the Constitution bars a presidential candidate who has reached the age of 75 before the election and not a president who has reached 75 while he/she is still in office.
13. What remedies are available to the parties, the court was unanimous and I agree with them because costs or remedies are at the discretion of court depending on facts and circumstances.
Finally what does a person, whether legally or reasonably disposed conclude from these findings and the comments of each judge in his/her findings throughout the process of hearing petition?
I reflected on the previous petitions heard by the Supreme Court of Uganda since the promulgation of the 1995 Constitution.

Based on these reasons given, a former Justice of the same Supreme Court would more certainly conquer with Justice Kakuru. What reasons would those five learned justices give to separate?
Finally, I sight two justices who had petitions.

The learned Deputy CJ said perhaps it is befitting to quote two learned justices who participated in the decision making process of the age limit ruling.
Justice Elizabeth Musoke said MPs were elected to serve for five years and adding two years without reference to voters amounted to legislators choosing to represent themselves.
The Act, which was being considered by Juggo Mark, was one and the same which were extending presidential terms for extra two years.
Deputy Chief Justice Owiny-Dollo said, “Before the Constitution has not been sufficiently tested, before the ink dries, it has been subjected to as many as five amendments.”
People would like to know which Constitution the DCJ is referring to, and if it is still young, why did he rule that it’s stillborn baby legitimises the extension of the President’s term but nullified the extension for the MPs.
That is why we must wait for the final verdict of the highest court in the land, the Supreme of Court.
On a happy note, the Constitutional Court is to be congratulated for having bravely drafted and read their own individual findings on the petition.