Supreme Court starts hearing age limit appeal case today
The Supreme Court in Kampala will today morning starting hearing an appeal challenging the upholding of the amendment of the lower and upper age limit in the Constitution.
A group of three parties including the Uganda Law Society, lawyer Male Mabirizi and 11 MPs led by Winnie Kiiza are challenging the judgment by the Constitutional Court that okayed the removal of presidential age limit from the Constitution.
A panel of 7 judges including the Chief Justice Bart Katureebe,Paul Mugamba,Stella Amoko Arach, Ruby Apio Aweri, Jotham Tumwesigye, Eldad Mwanguhya and Lillian Tibatemwa Ekirikubinza will hear the petition for two days before delivering a judgment on the matter.
Issues to be determined
The parties agreed on eight issues that they would want court to determine during the consolidated age limit appeal at the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court will be required to determine whether the Justice of the Constitutional Court misdirected themselves on the application of basic structure doctrine while determining the age limit petition.
The court will also be required to determine whether the Justices of the Constitutional Court erred in law when they said that the entire process of consulting, debating and enactment of the age limit act didn’t contravene provisions of the 1995 constitution and the rules and procedures of parliament.
The parties also agreed that court should determine whether the Justices of the Constitutional Court erred in law when they held that the scuffle and violence in and outside parliament didn’t contravene the 1995 constitution.
They also agreed for the court to determine whether the Justices of the Constitutional Court applied the substantiality test while deciding the age limit petition.
The Supreme Court will also be required to determine whether the Justices of the Constitutional Court misguided themselves when they ruled that passing of the age limit was not inconsistent with the 1995 Constitution.
The court will also determine whether the judges contravened the 1995 Constitution when they ruled that the president elected in 2016 will not leave office after clocking 75 years of age
The parties also agreed that court should determine whether the Justices of the Constitutional Court derogated the applicants’ right to fair hearing, injudiciously exercised their discretion and committed procedural irregularities and if so, to what extent did it affect the final judgment.
