Defeated city lawyer without a practicing license from Law Development Centre (LDC) Male Mabirizi has today petitioned the highest court of the law (Supreme Court) seeking a review of the recent controversial age limit judgment.  According to the petition exclusively sent to this website, Mabirizi showed his dissatisfaction with the 4-3 judgement where he together with other appellants wanted court to declare that article 102(b) was illegally amended by the parliament of Uganda.

The maverick lawyer in his affidavit indicated that the Chief Justice Bart Katureebe and other three justices who dismissed his appeal from the constitutional court were incompetent.  He cited the health condition of the CJ Katureebe during the reading of his judgement.

Mabirizi noted that Katureebe was very sick and because of this, he failed to read his judgement which tempted him to think that he was not the one who wrote the judgement.

He explained that one of the factors which forced the judge to retire from service was his health condition. He further pinned Katureebe that he failed to declare his conflict of interest in the case before the hearing started, he said that Katureebe is a close friend to president Museveni because he was the corporation minister and Attorney General in president Museveni’s government. He further revealed that Katureebe decided to shift from his ancestral home in Bunyabuguru to Nyaboshozi next to Museveni for easy communication between the two. He said that before the hearing of the age limit, he held a meeting with Katureebe and other justices on the panel where he asked them to declare their personal interest, but they all convinced him that they have integrity and love to protect their country.

He revealed that it was in this same meeting that he forced justice Richard Buteera not to sit on the penal because he is a personal friend to president Museveni.   

He also exposed justice Jonathan Tumwesigye who also dismissed the age limit appeal saying he was an NRM cadre because he was among the people who first worked at the Movement secretariat.

On justice Tumwesigye, Mabirizi said that when he was still the Inspector General of Government, he was a very close friend to court of Appeal justice Elizabeth Musoke who also dismissed his petition at the constitutional court and they usually traveled abroad together. Mabirizi claims that because of this connection between the two judges, Musoke might have convinced Tumwesigye to judge the matter like she did in the constitutional court. 

He also pinned justice Stella Arachi Amoko that she is very close to the ruling government given that her husband, Ambassador Idule Amoko was appointed by president Museveni as an ambassador of Uganda to the African Union. On the 42 grounds, Mabirizi asked the supreme court to appoint a panel of justices to review the judgement made by seven justices and nullify it.

In an interview with this website, Mabirizi revealed that he decided to seek a judgement review from the supreme court as a second chance before he continues to the East African court’s justices. Other constitution lawyers supported Mabirizi due to the nature of the judgement.

Lawyer Nalukoola Luyimbazi revealed that its legal for a dissatisfied person over a judgement before he appeals to a higher court, to seek a review of the judgement. Lawyer Erias Lukwago who represented the six  members of parliament in this case said that the judgement was  incompetent in nature, amateurish and it ashamed the Uganda judiciary when compared to other judgements made by other justices in other country. Lukwago noted that it was a political judgement not a legal judgement, which was expected.

However, president Museveni’s personal lawyer Kiryowa Kiwanuka rubbished the appellants excuses and said that they failed to table substantial evidence both at the constitutional court and at the supreme court. “You people must stop politicizing this judgement, do you expect judges to come to city square asking for evidence. That’s not how courts do, you the lawyers are the ones who are supposed to take the evidence to court not court look for evidence,” Kiwanuka said.

He predicted that even if the appellants appealed to the East African courts of justices, they are going to lose it miserably and they will become a laughing stock internationally. Last week, four justices out of seven withheld the constitutional court judgement who endorsed that article 102(b) was legally amended.

Below is Mabirizi’s full petition:

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA

AT KOLOLO-KAMPALA.

CONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION No………………. OF 2019.

(ARISING OUT OF THE PURPORTED MAJORITY JUDGMENT IN CONSTITUTIONAL APPEAL No. 02 OF 2018-CONSOLIDATED WITH CONSTITUTIONAL APPEALS Nos. 3 & 4 OF 2018, KATUREEBE, ARACH-AMOKO; MWANGUSYA;OPIO AWERI;TIBATEMWA;MUGAMBA;JJSC TUMWESIGYE; Ag JSC)

(Arising out of Judgment of The Constitutional Court (Owiny-Dollo, DCJ; Kasule, Musoke & Barishaki; JCC, wholly concurring; with Kakuru JCC; concurring in part & dissenting in part), Dated 26th July 2018)

MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUKA::::::APPLICANT/APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF UGANDA:::::::::::::::RESPONDENT

NOTICE OF MOTION

(Under Paragraphs XXVI, XXIX (a)&(f) of National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy, Articles 1, 2, 3(2),(4)&(5), 8A, 28(1), 44(c), 126(1),(2)(a) & (e), 128(1),132(1) & (3), 133(2), 144(2)(a) & (c), 259, 260, 263 of The Constitution, Rule 23 (2) of the Constitutional Court (Petitions and Reference) Rules 2005, Rule 2(2)& (3), 42(1) of The Supreme Court Rules).

TAKE NOTICE that this Honourable court shall be moved on the………….day of …………………..2019 at………………in the fore/afternoon or soon thereafter as the applicant herein can be heard on an application for orders that:

Court be pleased to invoke its inherent powers under Rule 2(2) of The Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules and:
Set aside the purported Judgment of Katureebe, CJ, in Consolidated Constitutional Appeals Nos. 2, 3 & 4 of 2018 for being null and void.
Set aside the purported judgment of Arach-Amoko, JSC, in Consolidated Constitutional Appeals Nos. 2, 3 & 4 of 2018 for being null and void.
Set aside the purported judgment of Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC, in Consolidated Constitutional Appeals Nos. 2, 3 & 4 of 2018 for being null and void.

Consequent to prayers a, b & c above, declare that the judgments of Mwangusya, Tibatemwa & Mugamba; JJSC constitute the majority judgment of court being the majority of the remaining Justices who were entitled to sit and/or in the alternative, set up another coram excluding Katureebe, CJ and Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC to re-hear and determine the appeal expeditiously.
In alternative to prayer 1 above, Court be pleased to invoke its inherent powers under Rule 2(2) of The Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules to Review/amend/Rectify/modify/substitute/vary:
The per incuriam findings of Katureebe, CJ; Arach-Amoko, Opio-Aweri; JJSC & Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC on issues 2, 3 & 4 of the consolidated appeals to align them with the provisions of International, Continental, Regional Conventions and Treaties, the Constitution, Statute law, Rules of Parliament and decided cases in Uganda and universally so that it is made clear that;
the effect of none-compliance with constitutional imperatives in the constitutional amendment/statutory making process renders the proposed
law null and void, severance was not applicable in the case which was before court, any amount of violence vitiates any attempt to amend the Constitution, and the substantiality test could not be applied in the case which was before court.
The unanimous but per incuriam finding that a court of law can grant a remedy (in this case of severance) which was not pleaded by the party.
The final orders of Court to include orders; nullifying the entire impugned Act, granting costs in disbursements in the appeal to the applicant.
The respondent pays the costs of this application to the applicant.
THE GROUNDS upon which this application is based are contained in the affidavit of MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUAKA, the applicant, which shall
be relied upon at the hearing and hereto attached but they are briefly that:

The applicant was aggrieved by the purported majority decision by Katureebe, CJ, Arach-Amoko, JSC, Opio-Aweri, JSC and Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC.
The applicant has a right to petition The East African Court of Justice and/or The African Court of Human Rights for declarations thatbin light of the purported majority judgment, Uganda no longer adheres to the fundamental principles of The East African Community as well as The African Union.
Before proceeding to international, continental or Regional courts for redress, the applicant is duty bound to exhaust all domestic remedies, including filing the instant application.
The applicant is constitutionally duty bound to defend the Constitution and, in particular, to resist any person or group of persons, including judicial officers, seeking to overthrow the established constitutional order.
The applicant is constitutionally duty bound to do all in his power to restore the Constitution after it has been amended contrary to its
provisions, or after that illegal amendment has been purportedly approved by a court of law, including filing this particular application.
The Supreme Court has jurisdiction, powers and duty to make orders necessary for achieving the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of court (even by justices of the court) and to set aside judgments which have been proved null and void after they have been passed, to prevent an abuse of the process of court.
Having been suffering from infirmity of body for over five weeks preceding the delivery of the purported decision and during its delivery, Katureebe, CJ was not competent to write his purported Judgment which he even failed to read to the parties and the public.
Katureebe CJ’s infirmity of the body compromised his independence since he required state clearance to travel for treatment abroad.
Katureebe, CJ was not competent to sit as a Justice in the matter where his close old friend, Gen. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, the incumbent president of Uganda, is the biggest beneficiary of the outcome of the appeal.
Katureebe, CJ, is in a habit of sitting in matters where he has conflict of interest without disclosing the same to the parties and finally deciding in favour of the party where his interests lie.
Arach-Amoko, JSC was not competent to sit as a Justice in the matter since her husband, Ambassador Idule Amoko is a diplomatic political appointee of Gen. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, the incumbent president of Uganda, the biggest beneficiary of the outcome.
Tumwesigye, an Acting Justice of The Supreme Court was not competent to sit as a Justice in the matter where there were substantive Justices of the court who were not prohibited from handling the matter.
Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC was not competent to sit as a Justice in the matter having;
studied with and being a good friend of Gen. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, the incumbent president of Uganda, who is the biggest beneficiary of the outcome, worked as Director Legal Affairs at the Movement Secretariat, a political structure, whose chairman was Gen. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni,
the incumbent president of Uganda, who is the biggest beneficiary of the outcome and while serving as Inspector General of Government, worked closely with Elizabeth Musoke, JCC; who was one of the majority justices in the Constitutional Court.
At the time of hearing and determination of the appeal, the applicant was not in possession of the information relating to the past and current friendship and relationship of Katureebe, CJ, Arach-Amoko, JSC and Tuwmesigye, Ag. JSC with Gen. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, the sitting President of Uganda.
In pendency of judgment, the applicant was not in position to know the health status of Katureebe, CJ, despite his request for reason(s) for the delay of Judgment and getting a reasonless response from court.
The participation in hearing and determination of the appeal by Katureebe, CJ, Arach-Amoko, JSC and Tuwmesigye, Ag. JSC was contrary to the Constitution and basic principles of fair hearing.
In hearing and determining the appeal, Katureebe, CJ, Arach-Amoko, JSC and Tuwmesigye, Ag. JSC were not independent and were most likely to
have been under the control or direction of the person of Gen. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, their old friend or authority of The President of Uganda, which office is currently occupied by the said friend to Katureebe, CJ, Tuwmesigye, Ag. JSC and to the husband of Arach-Amoko, JSC.
The respective Judgments of Katureebe, CJ; Arach-Amoko, Opio-Aweri;
JJSC & Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC on issues 2, 3 & 4 of the consolidated
appeals are inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution and
hence null and void to the extent of their inconsistency.
The respective Judgments of Katureebe, CJ; Arach-Amoko, Opio-Aweri;
JJSC & Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC on issues 2, 3 & 4 of the consolidated
appeals go ahead to contradict earlier binding decisions of this court
without any valid process of departing from them.
The respective Judgments of Katureebe, CJ; Arach-Amoko, Opio-Aweri;
JJSC & Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC on issues 2, 3 & 4 of the consolidated
appeals promote anarchy, totarian and mob rule in Uganda.
The respective Judgments of Katureebe, CJ; Arach-Amoko, Opio-Aweri;
JJSC & Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC on issues 2, 3 & 4 of the consolidated
appeals were not reached in the name of the people, in conformity with
law and with the values, norms and aspirations of the people.
Contrary to international instruments and the Constitution, the
respective Judgments of Katureebe, CJ; Arach-Amoko, Opio-Aweri; JJSC &
Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC on issues 2, 3 & 4 of the consolidated appeals
subjected the universally inherent fundamental rights enshrined under
Chapter four of The Constitution, including the none-derogable one to
the whims and discretion of the state.
The respective Judgments of Katureebe, CJ; Arach-Amoko, Opio-Aweri;
JJSC & Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC on issues 2 & 4 of the consolidated appeals
shifted the power to amend the constitution and to generally legislate
from Parliament to the person of the Speaker of Parliament, contrary
to the constitution.
The respective Judgments of Katureebe, CJ; Arach-Amoko, Opio-Aweri;
JJSC & Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC on issues 2, 3 & 4 of the consolidated
appeals rendered legislative procedures and processes useless and
almost turned Uganda back to the days of decrees and pronouncements.
The respective Judgments of Katureebe, CJ; Arach-Amoko, Opio-Aweri;
JJSC & Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC on issues 2, 3 & 4 of the consolidated
appeals changed the legal and grammatical meaning of the term
‘Certificate’ or went against it.
The respective Judgments of Katureebe, CJ; Arach-Amoko, Opio-Aweri;
JJSC & Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC on issues 2, 3 & 4 of the consolidated
appeals were illegal in as much as they were based on matters relating
the parts of the Act which were set aside by the Constitutional Court
yet there was no appeal or cross-appeal challenging such decision.
The respective Judgments of Katureebe, CJ; Arach-Amoko, Opio-Aweri;
JJSC & Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC on issue 3 & 4 of the consolidated appeals
promote military rule, which is prohibited by the Constitution, as
opposed to the desired democratic governance.
The respective Judgments of Katureebe, CJ; Arach-Amoko, Opio-Aweri;
JJSC & Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC on issue 3 & 4 of the consolidated appeals
deviated from the constitutional mandate of this court as a
constitutional appellate court and turned into a parliamentary
disciplinary c ommittee to decry the conduct of members of parliament.
Katureebe, CJ contradicted his own decisions in BESIGYE V. MUSEVENI,
Presidential election Petition No. 1 of 2006, and JULIUS RWABINUMI V.
HOPE BAHIMBISIBWE, Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2009 that
court cannot grant remedies which are not pleaded by parties.
Arach-Amoko and Opio-Aweri, JJSC contradicted their own decision in
GALLERIA IN AFRICA v. UGANDA ELECTRICTY TRANSMSSION CO. LTD, Supreme
Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2017 that Statutory procedures are not
mere formalities but mandatory requirements.
The judgment of Arach-Amoko, JSC was contradictory in itself because,
after answering issue No. 4 in affirmative, that the substantiality
test was not applicable, there was no way she could uphold the
Constitutional Court majority judgment, which was a result of that
test.
There was no way Arach-Amoko, JSC would make a final finding that the
appeal fails and that she was dismissing it after answering issue No.
4, relation to the application of the substantiality test in the
affirmative.
Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC contradicted his own decision in FANGMIN V. BELEX
TOURS & TRAVEL, Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2013, that court
cannot grant remedies which are not pleaded by parties.
Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC misrepresented the facts in Ssemwogerere v.
Attorney General, Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2002, after which he
purported to distinguish it from the instant case.
Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC’s equation of fundamental human rights and
constitutional imperatives to financial consequences of repeating the
process undermines the preamble and the basic tenets of our
constitution.
The decision of court created confusion and made it so hard to
implement and enforce the Constitution, Acts of Parliament and Rules
of Procedure of Parliament.
The decision of court that severance could be applied without pleading
it created confusion to lower courts and litigants in light of the
several decisions of this court to the contrary.
The decision of court put Uganda’s Supremacy of the Constitution, rule
of law and the principle of stare de sis at cross roads.
Failure to order reimbursement by the respondent, a government, at
least the disbursements to the applicant, a citizen, in a matter which
was unanimously found to be in public interest has a chilling effect
on the future filing of such appeals by citizens, especially the young
generation like the applicant.
It is in the interest of protecting the sanctity of our Constitution,
promotion of fair hearing and rule of law that the application be
granted.
The application has been brought without delay.
The application has been made in good faith without any ill intentions.
The applicant will utilize the Record of Appeal for his Constitutional
Appeal No. 02 of 2018 as well as the authorities filed therein. The
application will be heard in a manner determined by court and the
applicant will represent himself, in person.

Dated at Kampala this…………………..day of…………………2019.

…………………………

MALE H.MABIRIZI K.KIWANUKA,
APPLICANT/APPELLANT.

GIVEN under the hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Uganda this……………
day of…………………….201……………

……………………

REGISTRAR,

SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA.

Drawn and filed by;

                        MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUKA

C/o Plot 39, Kampala Road, Shell Capital Building,

           2nd Floor, Suite 201, Tel 0787 263 086/0752 570 574,

Kampala.

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA

AT KOLOLO-KAMPALA.

CONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION No………………. OF 2019.

(ARISING OUT OF THE PURPORTED MAJORITY JUDGMENT IN CONSTITUTIONAL
APPEAL No. 02 OF 2018-CONSOLIDATED WITH CONSTITUTIONAL APPEALS Nos. 3
& 4 OF 2018, KATUREEBE, ARACH-AMOKO; MWANGUSYA;OPIO
AWERI;TIBATEMWA;MUGAMBA;JJSC TUMWESIGYE; Ag JSC)

(Arising out of Judgment of The Constitutional Court (Owiny-Dollo,
DCJ; Kasule, Musoke & Barishaki; JCC, wholly concurring; with Kakuru
JCC; concurring in part & dissenting in part), Dated 26th July 2018)

MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUKA::::::APPLICANT/APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF UGANDA:::::::::::::::RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION

I, MALE H. MABIRIZI K.KIWANUKA, of C/O Plot 39, Kampala Road, Shell
Capital Building, 2nd Floor, Suite 201, Tel 0787 263 086/0752 570 574,
Kampala, do hereby affirm on oath and state as follows:

THAT I am a male adult civically active Ugandan of Sound mind, a
lawyer by profession, having graduated at Makerere University in 2012
with a Bachelor of Laws (Honours) degree, a businessman by choice, the
appellant in Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No. 02 of 2018 and
the applicant herein; in which capacities I affirm to this affidavit
in support of the application.

THAT on 22nd December 2017, I filed, in the Constitutional Court,
Constitutional Petition No. 49 of 2017 challenging the now
Constitution (Amendment) Act, 2018, which had been purportedly
‘passed’ by Parliament on 20th December 2017, on grounds, mainly that
the procedure adopted in processing the Act and some provisions
therein were contrary to the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure
of Parliament.

THAT the Constitutional court consolidated it with other petitions and
they were all heard together at Mbale consequent to which judgment was
delivered on 6th July 2018 partially allowing my petition.

THAT I was not satisfied with part of the Judgment to which on the
next day, 27th July 2018 filed a Notice of appeal followed by a
memorandum and Record of Appeal filed on 13th August 2018 and the
appeal was registered as Constitutional Appeal No. 02 of 2018.

THAT after some time, parties were summoned at a pre-trial conference
before which I filed a notice that I would object to Buteera, JSC,
whom I had seen hearing another application arising from
Constitutional Appeal No. 04 of 2018.

THAT my main ground of objection to Buteera, JSC was that he was a
long-time friend of Gen. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, the sitting president
of Uganda and that during his tenure as Director of Public
Prosecutions, he cleared political prosecution of Gen. Museveni’s
opponents.

THAT before conferencing, Katureebe, CJ clarified that Buteera, JSC
was only sitting for conferencing purposes and that the appeal will be
heard and determined by KATUREEBE, CJ, ARACH-AMOKO; MWANGUSYA; OPIO
AWERI; TIBATEMWA; MUGAMBA; JJSC and TUMWESIGYE; Ag. JSC.

THAT Katureebe, CJ, Arach-Amoko, JSC and Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC, all of
whom were on the panel that day, did not disclose that they were in
the same situation like Buteera, JSC themselves being old friends of
Gen. Yoweri Museveni and Arach-Amoko, JSC’s husband being a diplomatic
political appointee of the same General.

THAT I know that the three justices ought to have disclosed their
close association with Gen. Yoweri Museveni, the sitting president of
Uganda and the main beneficiary of the impugned Act.

THAT Gen. Museveni is the main beneficiary because the main object of
the Act was to remove the age-restrictions on presidential aspirants,
in particular to remove the cap of 75 years yet Gen. Museveni is
already 74 years hence not qualified to be nominated for purposes of
2021 presidential elections, unless the constitution is amended.

THAT therefore, it was crystal clear from the beginning that allowing
my appeal would mean that Gen. Museveni would be disqualified from
standing for presidency in the next presidential elections and
dismissing it meant clearing him for nomination.

THAT therefore, the appeal never required to be heard by any person
connected to Gen. Museveni and any independent, competent and
compliant judicial officer had to disclose his relationship with Gen.
Museveni which Katureebe, CJ, Arach-Amoko, JSC and Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC
did not do.

THAT without any knowledge of the past relationship between Katureebe,
CJ, Arach-Amoko, JSC and Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC and Gen. Museveni, the
Supreme Court, I felt comfortable to present my appeal before the
panel where Buteera, JSC had been substituted with Mwangushya, JSC.

THAT consequently, just like the Constitutional court, the Supreme
Court consolidated my appeal with two others after which the following
issues were framed:
Whether the learned Justices of the Constitutional Court misdirected
themselves on the application of the basic structure doctrine?
Whether the learned majority justices of the Constitutional Court
erred in law and in fact in holding that the entire process of
conceptualizing, debating and enactment of Constitution (Amendment)
Act 2018 did not in any respect contravene nor was it inconsistent
with the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda and The Rules of
Procedure of Parliament?
Whether the learned Justices of the Constitutional Court erred in law
and fact when they held that the violence/scuffle inside and outside
Parliament during the enactment of the Constitution (Amendment) Act
2018 did not in any respect contravene nor was it inconsistent with
the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda.
Whether the learned Justices of The Constitutional Court erred in law
when they applied the substantiality test in determining the petition.
Whether the learned Justices of the Constitutional Court misdirected
themselves when they held that the Constitution (Amendment) Act 2018
on the removal of the age limit for the President and Local Council V
offices was not inconsistent with the provisions of the 1995
Constitution?
Whether the Constitutional Court erred in law and fact in holding that
the president elected in 2016 is not liable to vacate office on
attaining the age of 75 years?
(a) Whether the learned Justices of The Constitutional Court derogated
the appellants’ right to fair hearing, un-judiciously exercised their
discretion and committed the alleged procedural irregularities?
(b) If so, what is the effect on the decision of the Court?

What remedies are available to the Parties?
THAT court gave directions and time lines for filing written
submissions and the respondent was given 21 days to respond to the
submissions and at hearing, it was directed that appellants would have
one hour for main submissions and fourty minutes for rejoinder.

THAT meanwhile, on the 14th day of November 2018, I filed Misc.
Application No. 07 of 2018, for orders that I am allowed to adduce
additional evidence by way of cross-examining the Speaker of
Parliament, Rt. Hon. Speaker of Parliament which was fixed for hearing
on 12th December 2018.

THAT before hearing, Katureebe, CJ, introduced a point that parties,
instead of proceeding with the application should address court on the
propriety of the application which he stated to be accompanied by an
argumentative affidavit.

THAT I requested that I should answer his query together with the
application but he refused stating that he could not give me
permission to proceed with the application before deciding his own
raised point.

THAT when the respondent’s side started responding on my objection to
his un-dated affidavit, Tumwesigye, JSC asked him not to waste time on
responding because, since the application was defective, there was
nothing to respond to.
THAT after making my rejoinder, I sought to make submissions in
respect of my application but Katureebe, CJ did not allow me to do so
promising to make a ruling on Friday 14th December 2018.

THAT my mind remained skeptical of the intention of Katureebe CJ and
Tumwesigye Ag. JSC to deny me even the right to present my application
but I never the less waited for the ruling.

THAT on 14th December 2018, the Court delivered a unanimous ruling
where they upheld their own raised objections that the application was
supported by an argumentative affidavit.

THAT to my surprise, the decision went ahead to dismiss my application
without hearing it, on ground that it was pre-emptive of the issues in
the appeal.

THAT the above ruling, which I have come to know that it was highly
influenced by the three; Katureebe, CJ, Arach-Amoko, JSC and
Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC was highly contradictory in itself.

THAT while in the same judgment the defect in the respondent’s
affidavit of none-dating was cured, I, up to now wonder how and why
the said defect in my affidavits, which was said to be arguments,
could not be cured by striking out such paragraphs remaining with
others and indeed no reason was given for not doing so.
THAT although I complied with the timelines for filing of written
submissions, the respondent did not comply and the court extended time
twice and the last extension from 14th December 2018 to 11th January
2019 was made unilaterally by court without involving the applicant.

THAT I further remained patient and waited for the hearing date where
I was given an hour to highlight my submissions and as I was making my
submissions relating to habits of judicial officers to be taken by
lust for wealth and power to favour the powerful and the rich,
Arach-Amoko, JSC remarked that I was abusing them.

THAT Katureebe, CJ made it clear that a certificate of compliance only
shows what was passed in accordance with the Constitution, that there
is no problem with an old president since Malaysia has a ninety year
old president, among other biased comments.

THAT the respondent who was allotted only three hours ended up
spending about five hours and Katureebe, CJ kept on extending his
staff time in a manner which was so unfair and un-proportional.

THAT when it came to rejoinder, Katureebe, CJ departed from the
earlier agreed time of 40 minutes per appellant and commanded each
appellant to only spend twenty minutes.

THAT my efforts to protest the last minute change of time were not
heeded to as Katureebe, CJ seemed not bothered about what had been
earlier agreed upon and directed.

THAT at the end of hearing on 16th January 2019, Katureebe, CJ stated
that judgment would be on notice but cautioned me against suing him in
the International Court of Justice for the delay to deliver the
judgment because court may not deliver it within the required sixty
days.

THAT the sixty days from 16th January 2019 expired on 17th March 2019
with neither judgment delivered nor any reason, whether good or
otherwise, advanced as to why it was not possible to deliver the
judgment within sixty days.

THAT by my letter dated 28th March 2019, I requested for reasons why
the judgment was not delivered within the required sixty (60) days.

THAT by letter dated 29th March 2019, the Deputy Registrar of The
Supreme Court of Uganda, for Registrar Supreme Court, responded to my
letter, without giving any reason for the delay, but merely stating
that the judgment is being processed.

THAT the above response by the Deputy Registrar fell short of giving
any reason as to why the Judgment was not delivered within the
required sixty days since stating that they were still processing the
appeal is not a reason why they were processing it outside the set
timelines.

THAT since 29th March 2019, I, on a daily basis, visited the office of
the Katureebe, CJ, at Judiciary Headquarters and at The Supreme Court,
so that I could ask him, face-to-face, for reasons why the judgment
was not delivered in time but he was always not available.

THAT consequently, on 15th April 2019, I filed High Court Civil
Division Misc. Cause No. 95 of 2019 against The Chief Justice and the
respondent for an order of mandamus compelling The Hon. The Chief
Justice of Uganda to give me reasons why The Judgment in Supreme Court
Constitutional Appeal No. 02 of 2018 was not delivered within the
sixty (60) days from 16th January 2019, the date of closure of hearing
or in alternative for an order of mandamus compelling him to
immediately cause delivery of the said Judgment.

THAT I notified the Supreme Court about the development in the morning
of the same day and later in the evening, the same court served me
with a judgment Notice.

THAT I was present in court on 18th April 2019 to hear from court
since the judgment notice had indicated the same date at 10:00 am.
THAT in his opening remarks, Katureebe CJ explained that there has
been delay in delivery of judgment because he was suffering from an
ailment which led him to a medical operation and that he is due to go
for another medical operation the then coming week. He called upon
Arach-Amoko, JSC to read her judgment.

THAT had I known earlier that Katureebe, CJ was not in a firm health,
I would have arrested the judgment because I know that a judicial
officer suffering from infirmity of body is not competent to make
judgment.

THAT I carefully and attentively listened to all the Justices as they
delivered their judgments from Arach-Amoko, Mwangusya, Opio-Aweri,
Tibatemwa, Mugamba, Tumwesigye & Katureebe.
THAT when time for Katureebe, CJ reached, he said that as said
earlier, he was seriously sick and due to go for another medical
operation the coming week stating that he was under strict
instructions from doctors not to read but that he would read the first
few words after which he would give it to Mwangusya, JSC to read the
rest of his judgment.

THAT he read that he had read the Judgment of Amoko, JSC which he
agreed with that the appeal should fail with each party to bear his
own costs after which he gave to Mwangusya, JSC to read to him the
final orders.

THAT the above actions of Katurebe CJ were unconstitutional and beat
common sense because a judicial officer, a Chief Justice at that,
cannot claim to have written a judgment when he was suffering from
infirmity of the body which took away his sense of sight.

THAT the confession that he had lost sight was a clear signal that
there was no way the could have independently written the Judgment
when he could not see and I know that in absence of any of the
elementary senses of nature, a person cannot claim to be a judicial
officer.

THAT Katureebe CJ is a bully by nature as he chose to direct
Mwangusya, JSC who was his left and who had ruled to set aside the
entire Act, to read his judgment which was the opposite of his yet on
his right hand, he had Arach-Amoko, JSC who had ruled to dismiss the
appeal just like Katureebe, CJ.

THAT Mwagusya, JSC obliged and read the final orders which dismissed
the appeal with each party to bear his own costs, after which the
court rose.

THAT indeed, I was not only aggrieved by the purported majority
decision but I also became so much worried about the future of
constitutionalism and rule of law in this country in light of what the
three gentlemen and a lady, who are not aliens in this country, had
decided, to give a green flag to violence and none-compliance with
constitutional imperatives in amending the constitution.

THAT I am aware that under The Treaty For Establishment of The East
African Community, I have a right to petition the East African Court
of justice for an adjudication whether, in light of the purported
majority judgment of this court, Uganda, a member state therein still
abides by the fundamental principles of good governance including
adherence to the principles of democracy, the rule of law, protection
of human and people’s rights in accordance with the provisions of the
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

THAT equally, I have a choice to petition the African Court of Human
Rights for a declaration that Uganda as a member in African Union does
not abide by the principle of protection of human and people’s rights
in accordance with the provisions of the African Charter on Human and
Peoples’ Rights.

THAT however, I know that before proceeding to international,
continental or Regional courts for redress, I am duty bound to exhaust
all domestic remedies.

THAT I know that I have a right and duty to file the instant
application so that all domestic avenues can be exhausted especially
given the fact the legality of the judgment is under challenge, which
if set aside, the grounds of my petition to the regional or
continental courts will cease to exist.

THAT further, I am constitutionally duty bound to defend the Uganda
1995 Constitution and, in particular, to resist any person or group of
persons, including judicial officers, seeking to overthrow the
established constitutional order.

THAT I am also constitutionally duty bound to do all in my power to
restore the Constitution after it has been amended contrary to its
provisions, or after that illegal amendment has been purportedly
approved by a court of law, including filing this particular
application to set aside the said purported judgment.

THAT as a lawyer, I am aware that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction,
powers and duty to make orders necessary for achieving the ends of
justice or to prevent abuse of the process of court (even by justices
of the court) and to set aside judgments which have been proved null
and void after they have been passed, to prevent an abuse of the
process of court.

THAT I see that in the first place, there was no judgment to talk
about since out of the seven justices, one of them, Katureebe, CJ, was
suffering from infirmity of body for over five weeks preceding the
judgment which killed his sense of sight and hence could not
constitute part of the coram.
THAT I know that having been suffering from infirmity of body for over
five weeks preceding the delivery of the purported decision and during
its delivery, Katureebe, CJ was not competent to write his purported
Judgment which he even failed to read to the parties and the public.

THAT I see that Katureebe CJ’s infirmity of the body compromised his
independence since he required state clearance to travel for treatment
abroad which clearance is given by the Medical Board which is
constituted of and managed by members of the Executive organ of the
state who are appointed and supervised by Gen. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni,
the reigning president who is the biggest beneficiary of the decision.

THAT after judgment, I was able to obtain the antecedents of the
majority Justices to ascertain whether they could have been
independent of the longest serving head of this country who has ruled
it since 1986 and indeed my findings show that Katureebe, CJ,
Arach-Amoko, JSC as well as Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC were not supposed to
sit as justices due to their past and present connections with General
Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, the biggest beneficiary of the impugned Act.

THAT I found out that even if Katureebe, CJ was not suffering from the
infirmity of the body, he was not competent to sit as a Justice in the
matter where his close old friend, Gen. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, the
incumbent president of Uganda, is the biggest beneficiary of the
outcome.

THAT during the Easter holiday, I was able to listen to an interview
given by Katureebe, CJ to Capital Radio’s Simon Kasyate in a progamme
called Desert Island, in 2016, after he had been appointed Chief
Justice, wherein he elaborates his background and ties with Gen.
Yoweri Kaguta Museveni.

THAT he stated that he first linked up with Gen Museveni in 1980, when
Gen. Museveni was the minister responsible for Regional Cooperation
while Katureebe was a State Attorney where he was assigned to travel
with the minister to Arusha, Tanzania to sign an agreement for
establishment of The East African Management Institute, where
Katureebe was assigned as a State Attorney to go with the minister.

THAT during the travel, which was by road through Narobi, Museveni
asked Katureebe where he hailed from and that on answering
Bunyaruguru, Museveni wondered whether the remote Bunyaruguru was
capable of producing a state attorney in Katureebe to which Katureebe
answered in affirmative.

THAT the trip spent some time as they travelled on road and that the
entire trip was full of friendly conversations with Museveni and that
that was his beginning of relationship with Gen. Museveni.
THAT two years after the Museveni-led National Resistance Army took
over power, in 1998, Gen. Museveni appointed him Deputy Minister for
Regional Cooperation, the same position formerly held by Museveni when
he first linked up with Katureebe.

THAT he was at Kampala club when his friends told him that he had been
appointed a minister yet then, he was not yet a politician.

THAT he served in that position until 1991 when the same Gen. Museveni
appointed him Deputy Minister for Industry and Technology as well as a
member National Resistance Council, the then’s Parliament whose
members were indeed appointed by Gen. Museveni.

THAT in 1994, he was elected to represent Bunyaruguru Constituency in
the Constituent Assembly between 1992-1995 and maintained his
ministerial position as well as his membership to the National
Resistance Council.

THAT after the 1996 elections, where he was voted to represent
Bunyaruguru Constituency in Parliament, Gen. Museveni appointed him
Minister of Justice, Constitutional Affairs and Attorney General which
position he held until 2001.

THAT the people of Bunyaruguru refused to vote him back in 2001 and
consequently lost his ministerial position making him to later co-find
Kampala Associated Advocates, a law firm.
THAT he was later on, in 2005 appointed a Justice of The Supreme Court
a position he held until 2015 when he was appointed a Chief Justice.

THAT I know that to cement his friendship with General Yoweri Kaguta
Museveni, Ktureebe even shifted his upcountry home and farm from
Bunyaruguru, current Rubirizi district to Nyabsushozi, nearer to Gen.
Museveni’s country home of Rwakitura, in current Kiruhura district.

THAT I know that such past relationship between Katureebe, CJ and Gen.
Museveni, including political appointments which required no
interviews and which he held for fourteen years created a very strong
tie with Museveni that Katureebe could not be in position, or could
not be expected to act independently in a matter involving Gen. Yoweri
Kaguta Museveni to be able to rule against him.

THAT during the same Easter season, I was able to review the decisions
where Katureebe sat as a Justice of The Supreme Court and where
Museveni was an interested party and found that in all occasions he
ruled in favour of Museveni.

THAT in the 2006 Presidential election petition, Kiiza Bsigye v.
Museveni & Anor, Supreme Court Election Petition No. 1 of 2016,
Katureebe, the most junior person at the bench, became the deciding
factor when he went to the majority of four against the minority of
three.

THAT in the 2016 Presidential election petition, Amama Mbabazi v.
Museveni & 2 Ors, Supreme Court Election Petition No. 1 of 2016,
Katureebe, who had been just appointed The Chief Justice led the
entire Supreme Court nine-member panel to dismiss the petition.

THAT most importantly, in the two decisions, he did not disclose his
close ties with Gen. Museveni, one of the parties to the petition but
remained silent and finally decided in his favour.

THAT Katureebe, CJ has made it a habit to sit in matters where Kampala
Associated Advocates, the law firm he co-founded is counsel, without
disclosing his conflict of interest.

THAT in Constitutional Application No. 06 of 2013, Ssekikubo & Ors v.
Attorney General and Others, Mr. Joseph Matsiko, a partner in Kampala
Associated Advocates appeared for one of the respondents but
Katureebe, then JSC, who indeed presided over the sitting did not
disclose that he founded Kampala Associated Advocates.

THAT in Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2016, presided over
by Katureebe, CJ, the same Mr. Joseph Matsiko, a partner in Kampala
Associated Advocates appeared for Mr. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni but
again, Katureebe CJ, did not disclose his association with the said
law firm and he ruled in favour of Museveni.

THAT I have come to understand that Arach-Amoko, JSC was not competent
to sit as a Justice in the matter since her husband, Ambassador Idule
Amoko, Uganda’s Ambassador to The African Union, is a diplomatic
political appointee of Gen. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, the incumbent
president of Uganda, the biggest beneficiary of the outcome.

THAT I know that there was no way Arach-Amoko, JSC could act
independently, or could be expected to act independently, in view of
her husband’s political position where his retention of the same is
premised on the wishes of Gen. Yoweri Museveni, the president, since
Ambassadors, unlike judges, enjoy no ultimate security of tenure.

THAT I know that Tumwesigye, an Acting Justice of The Supreme Court
was not competent to sit as a Justice in the matter where there where
substantive Justices of the court who were not prohibited from
handling the matter.

THAT although at the time of conferencing and hearing of the appeal, I
had raised a notice of objection against Buteera, JSC, non f the
parties objected to Kisaakye and Mwondha, both substantive Justices of
The Supreme Court and they were hence available.

THAT further, Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC was not competent to sit as a
Justice in the matter having studied with President Yoweri Kaguta
Museveni, the incumbent president of Uganda, who is the biggest
beneficiary of the outcome of the case, at Ntare School in Secondary
School.

THAT after the Judgment, Mr. Ofwono Opndo, the Executive Director The
Uganda Media Centre and Spokesperson of Gen. Museveni’s ruling
National Resistance Movement informed me that Tumesigye, JSC worked as
Director Legal Affairs at the Movement Secretariat, a political
structure, whose chairman was Gen. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, the
incumbent president of Uganda, who is the biggest beneficiary of the
outcome.

THAT with such past personal and political relationship between
Tumwesigye and Gen. Yoweri Museveni, it is visible that there was no
way Tumwesigye could be independent or could be expected to be
independent against Museveni, the biggest beneficiary of the impugned
Act.

THAT I also came to know that while serving as Inspector General of
Government, Tumwesigye worked so closely with Elizabeth Musoke, JCC;
who was one of the majority justices in the Constitutional Court to
the extent that she travelled with her on most of his official trips
abroad.

THAT I see that with such kind of relationship with the Lady Justice
of the Constitutional Court, there was no way or there could be no way
Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC could rule against or expected to rule against the
judgment of Elizabeth Musoke made at the Constitutional Court.

THAT I was not able to lay the above information relating to the past
and current friendship and relationship of Katureebe, CJ, Arach-Amoko,
JSC and Tuwmesigye, Ag. JSC with Gen. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, the
sitting President of Uganda and the strongest beneficiary from the
impugned Act because before hearing, during hearing and in pendency of
the Judgment because I was not in possession of the above stated
information.

THAT further, in pendency of judgment, I was not in position to know
the health status of Katureebe, CJ, despite my request for reason for
the delay of Judgment and getting a reasonless response from court and
I could not hence arrest the decision before its delivery.

THAT I know that the participation in hearing and determination of the
appeal by Katureebe, CJ, Arach-Amoko, JSC and Tuwmesigye, Ag. JSC was
contrary to the Constitution, international, continental and regional
conventions and treaties as well as the basic principles of fair
hearing.

THAT I confirm that in hearing and determining the appeal, Katureebe,
CJ, Arach-Amoko, JSC and Tuwmesigye, Ag. JSC were not independent and
are most likely to have been under the control or direction of the
person of Gen. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, their old friend or authority
of The President of Uganda, which office is currently occupied by the
said friend to Katureebe, CJ, Tuwmesigye, Ag. JSC and to the husband
of Arach-Amoko, JSC.

THAT without prejudice to the incompetency of Katureebe, CJ,
Arach-Amoko, JSC and Tuwmesigye, Ag. JSC to sit as Justices, I have
seen that the respective Judgments of Katureebe, CJ; Arach-Amoko,
Opio-Aweri; JJSC & Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC on issues 2, 3 & 4 of the
consolidated appeals are inconsistent with the provisions of the
Constitution and hence null and void to the extent of their
inconsistency.

THAT I have seen that the respective Judgments of Katureebe, CJ;
Arach-Amoko, Opio-Aweri; JJSC & Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC on issues 2, 3 & 4
of the consolidated appeals created confusion and made it so hard to
implement and enforce the Constitution, Acts of Parliament and Rules
of Procedure of Parliament.

THAT indeed, the respective Judgments of Katureebe, CJ; Arach-Amoko,
Opio-Aweri; JJSC & Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC on issues 2, 3 & 4 of the
consolidated appeals rendered legislative procedures and processes
useless and almost turned Uganda back to the days of decrees and
pronouncements.

THAT I see that the respective Judgments of Katureebe, CJ;
Arach-Amoko, Opio-Aweri; JJSC & Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC on issues 2, 3 & 4
of the consolidated appeals changed the legal and grammatical meaning
of the term ‘Certificate’ or went against it by holding that a
defective certificate can support a proposed constitutional amendment.

THAT I see that the decision of court that severance could be applied
without pleading it created confusion to lower courts and litigants in
light of the several decisions of this court to the contrary.

THAT indeed the respective Judgments of Katureebe, CJ; Arach-Amoko,
Opio-Aweri; JJSC & Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC on issues 2, 3 & 4 of the
consolidated appeals put Uganda’s Supremacy of the Constitution, rule
of law and the principle of precedents/stare de sis at cross roads.

THAT in fact, the respective Judgments of Katureebe, CJ; Arach-Amoko,
Opio-Aweri; JJSC & Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC on issues 2, 3 & 4 of the
consolidated appeals were illegal in as much as they were based on
matters relating the parts of the Act which were set aside by the
Constitutional Court yet there was no appeal or cross-appeal
challenging such decision.
THAT I have seen that the judgment of Arach-Amoko, JSC was
contradictory in itself because, after answering issue No. 4 in
affirmative, that the substantiality test was not applicable, there
was no way she could uphold the Constitutional Court majority
judgment, which was a result of that test.

THAT I indeed see that there was no way Arach-Amoko, JSC would make a
final finding that the appeal fails and that she was dismissing it
after answering issue No. 4, relation to the application of the
substantiality test in the affirmative.

THAT the above is because, it is easy to perceive that an appeal only
fails as a whole when all the issues have been answered in the
negative and since she had answered one issue in the affirmative, then
the appeal had partially succeeded.

THAT I have observed that the respective Judgments of Katureebe, CJ;
Arach-Amoko, Opio-Aweri; JJSC & Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC on issues 2, 3 & 4
of the consolidated appeals go ahead to contradict earlier binding
decisions of this court without any valid process of departing from
them.

THAT I have read the decisions of Katureebe, CJ, when he was still a
Justice of The Supreme Court in BESIGYE V. MUSEVENI, Presidential
election Petition No. 1 of 2006 and JULIUS RWABINUMI V. HOPE
BAHIMBISIBWE, Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2009 where he held
that court cannot grant remedies which are not pleaded by parties.

THAT I have also read the decision of Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC in FANGMIN
V. BELEX TOURS & TRAVEL, Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2013,
where he agreed with the judgment of Odoki, Ag. JSC that court cannot
grant remedies which are not pleaded by parties.

THAT contrary to the above decisions, in the instant case, they made
contradictions and held that the remedy of severance could be granted
by court without the same being pleaded by parties.

THAT I have seen that in validating procedural impropriety in the
impugned law making process, Arach-Amoko and Opio-Aweri, JJSC
contradicted their own decision in GALLRIA IN AFRICA v. UGANDA
ELECTRICTY TRANSMSSION CO. LTD, Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of
2017 that Statutory procedures are not mere formalities but mandatory
requirements.

THAT I have seen that the respective Judgments of Katureebe, CJ;
Arach-Amoko, Opio-Aweri; JJSC & Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC on issues 2, 3 & 4
of the consolidated appeals promote anarchy, totarian and mob rule in
Uganda.

THAT I see that the respective Judgments of Katureebe, CJ;
Arach-Amoko, Opio-Aweri; JJSC & Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC on issues 2, 3 & 4
of the consolidated appeals were not reached in the name of the
people, not in conformity with law and with the values, norms and
aspirations of the people of Uganda.

THAT I see that contrary to international instruments and the
Constitution, the respective Judgments of Katureebe, CJ; Arach-Amoko,
Opio-Aweri; JJSC & Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC on issues 2, 3 & 4 of the
consolidated appeals subjected the fundamental rights enshrined under
Chapter four of The Constitution, including the none-derogable one to
the whims and discretion of the state.

THAT I know that the respective Judgments of Katureebe, CJ;
Arach-Amoko, Opio-Aweri; JJSC & Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC on issues 2 & 4 of
the consolidated appeals shifted the power to amend the constitution
and to generally legislate from Parliament into the person of the
Speaker of Parliament.

THAT it is crystal clear that the respective Judgments of Katureebe,
CJ; Arach-Amoko, Opio-Aweri; JJSC & Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC on issue 3 & 4
of the consolidated appeals promote military rule, which is prohibited
by the Constitution, as opposed to the desired democratic governance.

THAT the above is because, despite the overwhelming evidence by The
Chief of Defence Forces that the violence at Parliament was a military
operation, the four justices went ahead to validate the resultant law.

THAT indeed, the respective Judgments of Katureebe, CJ; Arach-Amoko,
Opio-Aweri; JJSC & Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC on issue 3 & 4 of the
consolidated appeals deviated from the constitutional mandate of this
court as a constitutional appellate court and turned into a
parliamentary disciplinary committee to decry the misconduct of
members of parliament.

THAT while delivering his judgment, I saw that Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC
misrepresented the facts in Ssemwogerere v. Attorney General,
Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2002, after which he purported to
distinguish it from the instant case.

THAT in his judgment, he stated that in Ssemwogerere, there was no
quorum in Parliament yet here there was quorum yet the truth is in
Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2002, there was no issue relating to
quorum of Parliament.

THAT I have seen that Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC’s equation of fundamental
human rights and constitutional imperatives to financial consequences
of repeating the process undermines the preamble and the basic tenets
of our constitution.

THAT I have observed that failure to order reimbursement by the
respondent, a government, at least the disbursements to the applicant,
a citizen, in a matter which was unanimously found to be in public
interest has a chilling effect on the future filing of such appeals by
citizens, especially the young generation like me.

THAT I see that since at close of hearing, Katureebe CJ appreciated
the amount of research and in her judgment, Arach-Amoko, JSC expressed
gratitude for the research, it was and still only fair that court
orders the respondent to pay of disbursements.

THAT I it is in the interest of protecting the sanctity of our
Constitution, promotion of fair hearing and rule of law that the
application be granted.

THAT I have brought this application without delay, the purported
judgment having been delivered on 18th April 2019.

THAT I have filed this application in good faith without any ill intentions.

THAT I affirm to this affidavit in support of my application for
setting aside the purported judgment of the Supreme Court in
Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2018, consolidated with No. 3 & 4 of
2018 for being null and void and/or to review the majority judgment
and final orders of court.

THAT I am also applying for the costs of this application be provided
to me as against the respondent.

THAT whatever is stated herein above is true to the best of my knowledge.
Affirmed by the said;

   MALE H.MABIRIZI K.KIWANUKA


            ………………


           DEPONENT

Dated at Kampala this………….…day of………………… 2019.

BEFORE ME

……………………………………….

                                                          A

COMMISIONER FOR OATHS.

Drawn and filed by;

MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUKA,

C/O Plot 39 Kampala Road, Shell Capital Building, 2nd Floor Suite 201

TEL: 0752 570 574/0787 263 086, Kampala.