Lawyer Male Mabirizi Appeals Age Limit Ruling in Supreme Court


Lawyer Male Mabirizi Kiwanuka
14Shares

City lawyer, Male Mabirizi Kiwanuka has challenged the Presidential age limit judgment by the Constitutional Court delivered on Thursday.

In his appeal filed on Friday at the Supreme Court, the lawyer said it was wrong for the court to uphold the amendment which was marred by a number of irregularities.

“The judges failed to give the petitioner ample time to present his case when they extremely and unnecessarily interfered with his submissions and limited his scope of coverage thereby derogating his right to fair hearing,” the appeal states..

He added that the Justices agreed there was chaos in Parliament during the age limit debate but they went ahead to uphold the outcome of the chaos.

“The court failed to make a final decision on the fate of the two affidavits for Keith Muhakanizi and Gen David Muhoozi.”

In his appeal, Mabirizi has raised a total of 80 issues on which he challenges sections of the ruling by the Constitutional Court. He delivered his appeal to Henry Mugoya Secretary of the Supreme Court.

Mabirizi who was part of the petitioners says the Court failed to declare the entire act invalid after making a finding that the pre-conditions of a Presidential assent were not followed.

He contends that the Supreme Court should anull the age limit act because its passing was marred by inconsistencies. He further states that in its hearing of the petition and delivering the judgment, court fell short of fairness, truth and was contradictory.

“The gist of my appeal is that the petitioners were not given a fair hearing. In addition, the ruling was full of falsehoods and contradictions. You can not say that the security raided Parliament, mistreated MPs but at the same time say the process was lawful,” Mabirizi told reporters outside the Supreme court.

Meanwhile, lawyer Mabirizi has filed a notice of appeal to challenge part of the majority and some aspects of the Constitutional court.

In his notice, he contends that the ruling derogated his rights to a fair hearing, treated him in an inhuman manner not demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society or allowed by the Constitution.

He alluded to his eviction by court from the seats occupied by representatives of other parties putting him in a dock throughout the hearing and descusion of the petition.

14Shares
Got Something To Say?

Leave a comment.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *