Mabirizi cites 80 reasons against age limit petition

Tuesday July 31 2018

 Mr Male Mabirizi

Mr Male Mabirizi 

By ANTHONY WESAKA

Kampala- One of the petitioners in the age limit petition, Mr Male Mabirizi, had appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging some of the sections of the ruling last Thursday.

In his appeal, that he filed on Friday, Mr Mabirizi listed 80 reasons to why he is challenging the Mbale judgment.

The Constitutional Court, in a unanimous decision, struck down the two-year term of office extension of the MPs and local council leaders and also in a majority decision of 4:1, upheld the scrapping of the age limit clause (Article 102b) from the Constitution.

“Take notice that Male Mabirizi being dissatisfied with part of the majority judgment and orders and some aspects of unanimous judgment of the Constitutional Court sitting in Mbale on July 26, 2018, intends to appeal to the Supreme Court,” Mr Mabirizi states.

Deputy Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo, Justices Remmy Kasule, Elizabeth Musoke and Cheborion Barishaki ruled in a majority judgment that upheld the scrapping of the presidential age limit clause from the Constitution.

Justice Kenneth Kakuru dissented on grounds that the public was not involved in the consultation process that led to the constitutional amendment and yet they are key stakeholders.

Some of the grounds that Mr Mabirizi lists include; failure by court to nullify the entire Constitutional Amendment Act No. 1 of 2018 after making a finding that the presence of Uganda People’s Defence Forces were not called for and failure to nullify the Act after making a finding that the police circular issued by AIGP Asuman Mugenyi, which curtailed public participation,was unconstitutional.

Other grounds are refusal to summon the Speaker of Parliament to court and also abdicated their constitutional duty under Article 137 of the Constitution and applying statutory substantial effect principles applicable to election petitions which do not apply to interpretation of the Constitution.

By press time yesterday, the Supreme Court was yet to issue directions on how to proceed with the appeal.

Advertisement