Top court allows Uganda’s long-serving leader to run for office beyond 2021
Kampala, Uganda (PANA) - Uganda’s topmost court has, by a verdict of 4 to 3, ruled that the country’s parliament legally amended the constitution to remove the 75-year age limit for presidential candidates, giving President Yoweri Museveni an opportunity to extend his 35-year rule beyond 2021.
Chief Justice Bart Katureebe and Supreme Court Justices Jotham Tumwesigye, Rubby Opio Aweri and Arach Amoko ruled that the constitution was amended legally, while the dissenting decision came from Eldad Mwangusya, Lillian Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza and Paul Mugamba. The ruling took eight hours, with two breaks,to deliver.
The ruling was a result of an appeal filed by three parties that petitioned the Constitutional Court following the passing of the amendment in December 2017.
In July 2018, the Constitutional Court, by a majority decision of 4-1, dismissed a consolidated petition by MPs; the Uganda Law Society; and a citizen challenging the manner in which the constitution has been amended.
The controversial amendment was pushed through parliament at the end of 2017 to cap a year of division and animosity in the East African country.
President Museveni, who has been in charge of Uganda since January 1986 and will turn 75 in September, the age the 1995 constitution had set as the limit for presidential candidates, would therefore be required to quit at the next election in 2021.
It is the second time the constitution of Uganda, whose making was superintended by Museveni as president, has been amended to ensure that he continues in office.
The first such amendment was in 2005 when Museveni pushed through parliament an amendment to remove the two five-year term limit, which would have compelled him to leave power in 2006.
Museveni had then served two elected terms since 1996, having first served another ten years without being elected when he grabbed power using force of arms in 1986.
Museveni and his allies, shortly after he was controversially declared winner of the 2016 election, started plotting a raid on the constitution to ensure that he runs again in 2021.
Legislators who supported the amendment were handed money by the government to “consult” their constituents, while those who opposed it and tried to mobilise the country to reject the idea had their gatherings brutally dispersed by the security forces.
When the debate started in Parliament, those opposed to it tried to filibuster it. On the first occasion the amendment bill was supposed to be tabled, for instance, Opposition MPs interrupted proceedings as they unceasingly sang stanzas of the national anthem.
The opposing MPs reasoned that President Museveni and his allies had bribed most of the legislators and no meaningful debate would take place on the matter. They wanted it thrown out. On September 27, 2017, sensing that the debate would perhaps not go on under the circumstances, dozens of plainclothes security personnel, who are members of the presidential guard brigade, were sent into Parliament. They beat up a number of opposing MPs.
A female MP, Betty Nambooze, had her back dislocated and required specialised treatment in India. Nearly two years later, she walks with difficulty. Another MP, Francis Zaake, received specialized treatment in the US after the army raid on Parliament. Scores of other MPs were arrested from the precincts of Parliament on that day and held, some overnight, at different police stations.
Nambooze was among the MPs who petitioned the courts to have the amendment annulled. Apart from the violence that was meted out on MPs and some other Ugandans during the process, the petitioners argued that the amendment altered the basic structure of the constitution, which they argued was designed to ensure overstay in power by leaders.
They also argued that during the debate in parliament, amendments were illegally made to the original bill, and that the Speaker of Parliament did not give legislators sufficient notice and time to debate the issue.
Each of the judges read out their judgment in court, except Chief Justice Katureebe who said he had been indisposed and had not been able to write out his full judgment. He associated himself with the judgments that threw out the petition.
All the seven judges agreed that each party should bear its own cost.
-0- PANA EM/VAO 18April2019
