On July 26, 2018, Uganda’s Constitutional Court delivered one of the most significant judgments in the country’s political and constitutional history, upholding the amendment that removed the presidential age limit under Article 102(b) of the Constitution.
The ruling followed months of legal and political uncertainty after Parliament passed the Constitutional Amendment Act, 2018, which removed the upper age limit for presidential candidates.
Sitting at the High Court in Mbale, a five-justice panel spent nearly 11 hours delivering the judgment before concluding late at night.
Led by Deputy Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo, the court ruled by a majority of 4 to 1 that the removal of the 75-year presidential age cap was constitutional, clearing the way for President Yoweri Museveni to seek re-election beyond the previous age restriction.
The majority decision was delivered by Owiny-Dollo alongside Justices Remmy Kasule, Elizabeth Musoke and Cheborion Barishaki. The judges applied the doctrine of severance, allowing parts of the amendment they found valid to remain while striking down provisions they considered unconstitutional.
However, the court unanimously nullified Parliament’s decision to extend its own term, as well as that of local councils, from five to seven years.
The judges ruled that legislators could not extend their own mandate without seeking approval from citizens through a referendum.
The only dissenting voice was Justice Kenneth Kakuru, who argued that the entire amendment process was unconstitutional due to procedural violations.
Kakuru cited inadequate public consultation and the deployment of security personnel inside Parliament during debate on the Bill as among the issues that undermined the process.
He rejected the majority’s reliance on severance, arguing that legislation passed through an unconstitutional process could not be partially preserved.
“There is always danger that if the constitution is not strictly complied with, our hard-earned democracy shall degenerate into authoritarianism which leads to totalitarianism and dictatorship. The entire Constitutional Amendment Act is unconstitutional and therefore null and void,” Kakuru said.
Although his dissenting judgment did not determine the outcome of the case, it received significant attention from legal scholars and sections of the public, with many praising his interpretation of constitutional safeguards.
The Constitutional Court decision, however, was not the final stage in the legal battle.
Petitioners, including lawyer Male Mabirizi, the Uganda Law Society and opposition legislators, appealed against the ruling, challenging the removal of the age limit and arguing that the court had not adequately addressed concerns over the amendment process.
The government also appealed against the decision to overturn Parliament’s extension of its own term.
The matter was later considered by the Supreme Court, which delivered its judgment on April 18, 2019.
In a 4-3 majority ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the removal of the presidential age limit, while unanimously agreeing that Parliament had acted unconstitutionally by extending its own term.
The decision brought to an end the legal challenge over the amendment and confirmed the constitutional change that allowed President Museveni to contest elections beyond the age of 75.
