E. African court declines to halt 2021 elections

The East African Court of Justice has declined to stop the implementation of the political road map ahead 2021 general election.
A panel of five justices led by principal judge Monica Mugenyi, argued that halting the implementation of the political road map for any given period, would throw the electoral cycle into dissary and also cause a constitutional crisis in the country.
The other judges are Faustin Ntezilyayo (Rwanda), Audace Ngiye (Burundi), Charles Nyawello (South Sudan), and Charles Nyachae (Kenya).
The ruling of the regional court on Thursday, arose from an application filed by lawyer Male Mabirizi.
He was seeking to halt the implementation of 2021 road map until his main reference is heard to determine the validity of Parliament scrapping the contentious presidential age limit clauses in the Constitution that paved way for President Museveni to contest in the forthcoming polls if he so wishes.
“It is clear that the electoral timetable is quite constrained and to halt part of it for any length of time would certainly throw the electoral cycle into dissary with obvious political, social and economic, not to mention constitutional ramifications,” ruled the justices
They added: “Mindful as we are of the legitimate concern that the applicant (Mabirizi) may have as regards the final cost incidental to the implementation of an impugned law, we would, nonetheless, exercise our discretion to decline to grant the interim orders sought given the far-reaching repercussions to the constitutional order of the respondent state (Uganda). In the result, and for the reasons that we have set out herein above, we hereby dismiss the application.”
The justices instead ordered for the expeditious hearing of Mr Mabirizi’s reference before the actual polls since it is a matter of significant public interest to the citizens of Uganda.
“However, this being a matter of significant public interest to the people of Uganda as well as to all residents of East African Community, we deem it appropriate that we interrogate albeit briefly. We direct that the reference be fixed for hearing at the earliest opportunity. It is so ordered.”
Mr Mabirizi, in his reference filed in May last year, claims that the Uganda government amended the presidential age limit clauses (102b) through violence and deployment of military police in and outside Parliament, among other misdeeds, which he says are unconstitutional.
He also states that the same age limit amendment was done without complying with the strict procedures contained in the Constitution, acts of Parliament and rules of procedure of Parliament.
He now wants the regional court to among others, declare that the several actions and decisions of conceptualising, processing, pursuing and upholding the age limit amendment were unconstitutional and infringed on the treaty that established the East African Community.
But the government has since in its defence, argued that the Arusha-based court does not have the jurisdiction to hear the age limit case.
The government further claims that the issues raised by Mr Mabirizi have since been duly resolved by competent courts of the partner states and there is no need to revisit them.
In April last year, in a majority judgment of 4:3, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Constitutional Court that okayed the amendment of Article 102(b) of the Constitution to scrap the upper age limit cap of 75 years and lower age cap of 35 for anyone to contest for presidency.