Mabirizi takes Age Limit case to fourth court

COURT|AGE LIMIT|CONSTITUTION 

KAMPALA - Despite losing the Age Limit case in three eminent courts of law including the regional court, lawyer Hassan Male Mabirizi is still discontented with their respective verdicts. 

In the latest development, Mabirizi, who is described by many people as a perennial litigant has escalated the matter to the East African Court of Justice Appellate Division.  

The East African Court of Justice Appellate Division is the last court with jurisdiction in the matter and its decision will bring an end to the two-year litigation of the case. 

On September 30, the regional court First Instance Division led by Principal Judge Monica Mugenyi ruled that the Supreme Court's decision regarding the matter was not inconsistent with the principles in Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East Africa Community as Mabirizi alleged.   

Consequently, it dismissed Mabirizi's case with costs noting that the Supreme Court decision did not violate the rule of law principle either in terms of judicial conduct that underpins it.   

In his 34,800 pages' memorandum of appeal filed at the regional court's sub-registry in Kampala on Tuesday (December 1, 2020), Mabirizi however contends that the regional court First Instance Division purportedly committed procedural irregularities in adjudication of the case. 

"The judges of the regional court First Instance Division did not make decisions on matters pleaded and argued before them and they also failed to acknowledge and analyse the legal worth of the several authorities I relied on to argue my case and I want it overturned," Mabirizi contends. 

Mabirizi also accuses the First Instance Division of the regional court for making a finding on his character and conduct which he argues were not in issue. 

He also claims that the Judges of the First Instance Division of the regional court purportedly committed errors of law when they held that his reference was time barred to complaints against the Parliament's legislative process and actions of violence which purportedly took place in Parliament during the passing of the Constitutional Amendment Bill 2018 into law. 

He wants the Constitutional Amendment Act, 2018 declared a nullity arguing that it infringes on Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East Africa Community. 

Mabirizi also wants the court to award him sh20m that was awarded to his fellow petitioners by the Constitutional Court and maintained by the Supreme Court. 

The court denied Mabirizi the money in question on grounds that he is not an advocate. 

Mabirizi is a law graduate from Makerere University but never enrolled for a diploma in legal practice from Law Development Centre (LDC). 

Asked whether his case is not overtaken by events since candidates who would have been curtailed by the amended Constitutional provisions have since been nominated to run for presidency, Mabirizi said, "We are not challenging President Yoweri Museveni's election or that of John Katumba who is the youngest in the race but the Constitutional amendment which we believe was flawed." 

Asked whether or not he is not scared about the costs if he loses the appeal, he said, "We cannot be scared of paying costs when it comes to rule of law because if it collapses, it will swallow all of us." 

On April 29, 2019, the Supreme Court in a 4:3 majority judgment upheld the Constitutional Court verdict in which it Okayed the removal of the presidential Age Limit.    

Majority justices of the court ruled that despite several breaches that occurred during the tabling, debating, and passing of the law, it had no substantive effect on the process of the entire enactment of the Constitutional Amendment Act no.1 of 2018.    

Chief Justice emeritus Bart Katureebe, Stella Arach Amoko, Rubby Aweri, and Jotham Tumwesigye dismissed the appeal while Eldad Mwangusya, Lilian Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, and Paul Mugamba dissented.

Being dissatisfied with the verdict, Mabirizi petitioned the regional court seeking to have the enactment nullified.