https://twitter.com/HumanitarianAc4/status/1118802915089580032

As the Supreme Court is today delivering a verdict to determine whether President Museveni will be eligible or not to run for presidency again in 2021 elections, a number of Ugandans on social media are bitter and believe that the final verdict    will be of no good to Ugandans.

President Museveni will be above 75 years in 2021.

Meanwhile, One of the appellants and city lawyer Male Mabirizi hopes to win after challenging the decision of the Constitutional Court that upheld the amendment of the Constitution by Parliament to remove the 75-year upper age limit on the presidency.

Article 102(b), which was amended by 317 Members of Parliament (MPs)in the House about two years ago amidst stiff resistance from the minority Opposition MPs and moderates from the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) party following fist-fights on the floor of Parliament, barred anyone aged above 75 years or below 35 from contesting for presidency.

“I think I am going to win this case, unless otherwise,” Mabirizi told press at court Thursday morning.

If the Supreme Court overturns the Constitutional Court decision, Museveni will not be eligible to contest for presidency despite his NRM top organ and MPs having endorsed him as the party’s sole candidate.

The justices who are presiding over the case include; Chief Justice Bart Katureebe, Stella Arach Amoko, Eldad Mwangusya, Prof Lillian Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, Jotham Tumwesigye, Rubby Opio Aweri, and Paul Mugamba.

So far, the first Judge Justice Stella Arach Amoko has dismissed the consolidated age limit appeal and awarded costs to each party.

”I dismiss the consolidated appeal and the parties will bear their costs. I affirm the decision of the constitutional court.”Justice Stella Arach Amoko ruled

Earlier, she also exonerated the speaker of parliament Rebecca Kadaga, saying she acted within her powers by amending the order paper to allow MP Raphael Magyezi to introduce a Private Member’s Bill, saying she is in charge of the House and its order of business.

Justice Arach-Amoko also said the MPs ejected from the House were so ejected on the basis of their own lack of decorum, adding that whereas the security services were justified in removing the MPs from Parliament, the force used was not justified.

Justice Arach-Amoko also ruled that Parliament acted within its powers by amending article 102(b) saying it does not violate the basic structure doctrine and is within the mandate conferred upon it by the Constitution & as representatives of the people.

 

WHAT IS EXPECTED?

The Supreme Court will rule on whether the justices of the Constitutional Court misdirected themselves on the application of basic structure doctrine while determining the age limit petition.

The court will also rule on 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 panel of Supreme Court judges will also rule on 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.The country’s highest court will also give its judgment on whether the Justices of the Constitutional Court applied the substantiality test while deciding the age limit petition.

The court will also give its verdict on 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.