Petitioner Male Mabirizi in the age limit cases filed at Mbale constitutional court is sure to win today’s ruling presided over by five judges.
“Security is more tight than before but whatever happens, the judgement has to be read today and we are waiting to see it being delivered,” Mabirizi told NBS reporter, Joseph Sabiti,
“By the end of the day, we shall have known the majority position of court.”
Mabirizi said he personally has no problem with the time frame Judiciary took to deliver the ruling because people must appreciate that these were five cases which were hard.
“During the hearing, we were so brief but we spent 2 weeks, so you don’t expect the judges to finish that work so easily. They had to do their own research on all the material we gave them.”
He says judiciary needed much more time but thinks they have done their work in the last three months.
Sabiti: As a petitioner, do you have confidence in today’s ruling?
Male Mabirizi: Yes…
Today, the High Court in Mbale decides on the Constitutional Amendment that was tabled by Igara West Member of Parliament Raphael Magyezi.
Other petitioners who include the Uganda Law Society, 6 opposition Mps, One Prosper Busingye and Advocates Jonathan Abaine through their respective lawyers highlighted to court four major reasons why the Age- limit law should be nullified.
One, they said, is the fact that parliament exceeded its mandate and unlawfully made constitutional amendments without upholding the Constitution — the supreme law of the land.
These also asked court to declare that the whole process of tabling, enactment and assenting to the law violated various provisions of the Constitution and offended the provided safeguard structures against dictatorship.
Lawyers Elias Lukwago and Male Mabirizi cited several instances where parliament allegedly faulted its rules of procedure during the heated debate by among others; smuggling the bill on the order paper by the speaker on 19th/ September 2017, suspension of MPs during the debate and voting time, failure to close the doors of the chambers during voting and failure to allow members of the public to access the gallery during the debate.