By Sania Babirye
Hearing of the age – limit appeal has entered its second day at the Supreme court with the Attorney General William Byaruhanga asking the seven justices of the supreme court led by chief Justice Bart Katureebe to dismiss the appeal with costs.
While responding to the petitioners submissions made on Tuesday, Byaruhanga says the appeal is merely speculating and narrating since it does not give the exact errors that the petitioners claim the justices of the Constitutional court upheld in the Constitutional amendments which lifted an age limit for a sitting president both
minimum and maximum.
However Justice Bart Katureebe has ordered that the hearing of the appeal does continue but promised to deal with his objection in the final judgement of court.
Byaruhanga has submitted that the appeal is not challenging the Bill but only complains of the irregularities committed by parliament while passing the bill which can not be a basis to declare the entire age limit law null and void.
According to the Attorney General, parliament is vested with powers to amend the constitution on behalf of the public for as long it does not touch on those articles which are entrenched (ezinyikizidwa) in the Constitution and A(102b) regarding the presidential age -limit is not among them.
However, Justice Katureebe has reminded the AG of A(79) of the Constitution which empowers Parliament to make laws for peace , order and good governance of the nation and then tasked him to address the appellants’ fear if the recent Constitutional amendments which removed the presidential age -limit were not meant to benefit the incumbent president? To which Byaruhanga has replied in the negative.
Meanwhile, the Deputy Attorney General Mwesigwa Rukutana has submitted that Parliament was right to proceed with this private members bill because it imposed no charge on the Consolidated fund .
According to Rukutana, parliament was right to consider the bill since the Magyezi bill do not impose a charge on the Consolidated fund.
Rukutana also argues that was right to suspend its own rules of procedure by not giving the three day allowance between the tabling and debating of the bill.
when asked by the justices to show the urgency about the bill that led to parliament flaunting its own rules, Rukutana has replied that there had been delays and parliament had eaten within its time