By Spy Uganda
Kampala: Lawyer Hassan Male Mabirizi as we report this, he is sitting on tenterhooks following East African Court of Justice (EACJ) First Instance Division’s dismissal with costs his presidential age limit appeal.
According to the judgement read by EACJ principal judge Monica Mugenyi in a virtually held session, the court decided that presidential age limit removal did not violate the rule of law principle in Uganda as Mabirizi alleged.
On addition, the court okayed Chief Justice Emeritus Bart Katureebe of incompetence and bias hence trashing Mabirizi’s accusations.
In his petition, Mabirizi said the several actions, directives and decisions of all the three organs of government including parliament, executive and judiciary in conceptualizing, processing, pursuing and upholding of the age limit amendments was an infringement on the provisions of the East African Community treaty.
“Using the police and the military to disperse meetings organized by members of parliament and other political players to enhance public participation of citizens was a violation of their rights.”
He said amending the constitution through violence or threatened violence undermined the integrity of parliament, allowed the defence forces to participate in partisan politics and also derogated MPs’ fundamental rights against torture, inhuman and degrading treatment.
The Genesis Of The Matter
President Museveni on December 27, 2017, signed the Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 2 2017, commonly known as the Age Limit bill which had been passed by parliament on December 20 into law.
According to Mabirizi, assenting the bill by the president contravened the law.
“Assenting to the bill by the president on strength of an invalid certificate of compliance and in absence of proof that 14 sitting days were separated between the 2nd and 3rd readings contravened and undermined the fundamental and operational principles of the community which include good governance including adherence to the principles of democracy, the rule of law, accountability, transparency and the maintenance of universally accepted standards of human rights,” Mabirizi said.
He further argued that the action and process of reaching a decision of upholding the age limit amendments which had resulted from an illegal process were in contravention of the provisions of the law.
“The actions and decision of Uganda Constitutional and Supreme Courts contravene and undermine the fundamental and operational principles of the community which include good governance including adherence to the principles of democracy, the rule of law, accountability, transparency, social justice, equal opportunities, gender equality, as well as the recognition, promotion and the maintenance of universally accepted standards of human rights,” he said.