Removing age limit tantamount to writing a new Constitution

Recently 317 Members of Parliament passed the popular or unpopular (depending on which side you belong) age limit Bill while 97 members voted against. And on December 27, the President signed the Bill into law. This puts to a close the drama that had created a political logjam in the banana republic.

Honestly speaking, I think there was every thing illegitimate about the process. To begin with, there were the legal faults during the Plenary. Speaker Rebecca Kadaga was this time was probably under siege and defied the rules of procedure and unknowingly committing political suicide as follows: The doctrine of functus officio : Every student at Law School knows that after adjourning a parliamentary seating, she had no mantra to suspend the members.

The amendment of Article 102(b) violates the basic structure doctrine of the law where we find precedent in the case in India Bharati vs Kesavanada in 1973, where court ruled that the Parliament, for all intents and purposes, had the powers to amend a Constitution, but not to touch its basic features. The Indian case was the amendment of Article 368, which touches on the fundamental human rights .
All constitutions in the world have basic features depending on the national aim/national vision as captured in the constitution’s preamble. In the case of Uganda’s Constitution, the preamble says: “We the people of Uganda recalling our history that has been characterised by political and constitutional instability...”

This clearly makes Article 102(b) and 105 basic elements of the Constitution. Therefore, amending it tantamount to writing a new Constitution. All these need a judge of impeccable status like Kenyan Chief Justice David Maraga, Lord Denning or Atkin to rule that the Constitution was overthrown at gun-point through corruption and the words “will and consent “as captured by the supreme law violated. I pray the courts stand their ground

Joel Mukisa,
[email protected]