Connect with us
  • NEWS

    FULL PETITION: I Will Not Give Up: Lawyer Mabirizi Petitions CJ Katureebe To Review His Judgment: You Were Sick While Your Colleagues Work For M7 – Did You Expect Judges To Come To City Square Asking For your Evidence – M7 Lawyer Asks

    Published

    on

    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.

    Comments

    CRIME

    What Killed Simbamanyo Tycoon Kamya? How Top Lawyer Tried To Use Justice Byabakama’s Electoral Commission Deal To Save His Empire…

    Published

    on

    In one of the meetings where the agenda was to strategise on how to save the business empire of the late Peter Kamya, the proprietor of Simbamanyo Estate limited, one of his friends, who is also a seasoned commercial lawyer proposed a multibillion Electoral Commission deal which he was very sure would save the fallen tycoon’s empire.

    Multiple credible sources have revealed to the mighty Grapevine that this happened in 2018 when Equity bank had started threatening to auction Kamya’s properties which he used as security when securing a loan.

    The buildings were Ssimbamanyo House behind Central Police Station in Kampala city and Afrique Suites situated in Mutungo.

    Kamya, who is a brother-in-law to former deputy Prime Minister Muganwa Kajura allowed one of his senior lawyers to negotiate the deal which involved looking for a new home for the Electoral Commission.

    “The lawyer’s idea was for Kamya to rent the entire building to the Electoral Commission and the money collected as rent be used to service the loan which the bank was very comfortable with but out of the blue, when the deal was almost concluded, the old man changed his mind claiming that his friend was working with the bank to impoverish him and that’s how the deal flopped,” a source said.

    He added that the deal was waiting for the greenlight from president Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, who was a good friend to Kamya.

    The source added that even the Ministry of Gender was ready to shift to another building.

    Another source said that the Electoral Commission was giving Kamya a big deal compared to what he was receiving from the Ministry of Gender and within 3 to 4 years, the bank’s loan would be fully paid.

    The source said that Kamya changed his mind after getting another opinion from another shrewd young city lawyer who convinced him that the loan he got from Equity bank was not favourable and it can be challenged in Court.

    Sources said that when the bank learnt about Kamya’s plan to challenge them in court, they hastily auctioned both securities to controversial city businessman Sudhir Ruperelia’s Meera Investments Limited and Ronald Luwangula’s Luwaluwa Investments Limited, a move that frustrated Kamya’s entire plan to save his empire.

    He tried to save his empire through courts of law by filing an application seeking a temporary injuction stopping the selling of the said property but he lost the application with costs.

    He further petitioned president Museveni to save his empire arguing that it was illegally sold.

    Unfortunately, after making wide consultations, especially from the Attorney General and Bank of Uganda, the big man advised Kamya to challenge the sale of his properties in courts of law.

    He explained to him that he has no alternative to save him since he was advised that his properties were legally sold.

    Without losing hope, Kamya instructed his new lawyers led by Fred Muwema to institute a suit in the High Court Commercial Division against Crane Bank, Meera Investment Limited, Luwaluwa Investment, and lawyers of Katende Ssempebwa Company Advocates were also joined in the suit.

    The matter was allocated to Justice Stephen Mubiru, the head of the Division.

    Kamya hired Kihika Byenkya and Company Advocates to join his legal team which successfully secured an order for discovery against the respondents.

    Justice Mubiru ordered the respondents to allow the petitioner to inspect their email exchange, bank accounts and phone call logs which were made in the period when his properties were sold, an order which raised dust at the commercial court.

    Lawyers from Katende Ssempebwa Advocates petitioned Justice Rubby Opio Aweri, the Chief Inspector of Courts claiming that justice Mubiru was biased and he has to be investigated over the matter.

    He was ordered to refer the entire Ssimbamanyo file to justice Opio which Mubiru refused to do.

    Mubiru insisted that Justice Opio didn’t have powers to ask for the said file from him and guided that the matter has to proceed but lawyers challenged his action at the Court of Appeal.

    In October 2022, Justice Cheborion Barishaki of the Court of Appeal issued an order stopping Justice Mubiru from proceeding with the matter until three justices of the Court of Appeal determine the respondent’s grievances.

    Sources who have been close to Kamya revealed that Justice Cheborion’s ruling shocked Kamya and from that time, his life changed and it worsened last month and was rushed to Nairobi where he died on Friday morning.

    Sources said that other Simbamanyo Directors are set to continue with the legal fight to rescue their empire.

     

    By Sengooba Alirabaki

    Comments

    Continue Reading

    NATIONAL

    I Want My Child; Mother Cries Out To Majambere To Release His Son Who He Abducted, NRM Diehard Denies Allegation, Vows To Drag NUP To Court…

    Published

    on

    Nambazira Sauda (R), the mother to Godfrey Kirumira and Majambere

    A mother has cried out to National Resistance Movement (NRM) supporter Kamuntu Majembere to fight with fellow old men and bring back her child.

    Nambazira Sauda, the mother to Godfrey Kirumira, 17, wept while asking Sam Majembere alias Empologoma ya NRM to bring back her child who he kidnapped.

    Appearing at National Unity Platform (NUP) headquarters in Kamwokya Kampala, Sauda, with tears rolling down her eyes disclosed that on 5th, November, 2022, her child was kidnapped in a drone and taken away by Majambere.

    “The kids he was playing with that day came running to me and saying ‘mummy mummy’ Majambere came with other men and slapped Godfrey. He fell to the ground and they carried him away to a waiting drone and took him,” Sauda narrated as she cried.

    She added, “Majembere, you killed my child, you killed my 17-year-old child, you should have fought with your agemates and left my child.

    “I don’t even know how exactly he killed my son. Majambere give me my son at least I bury him myself. But why don’t you fight those who fought you not my little boy. Please give me my child, I’m in a lot of pain.”

    Embattled Sauda adduced that Majembere picked her son at 8:30 pm in a lot of pain.

    “At least you would have just slapped him and told him to sit down and asked him whatever you wanted, he would have obeyed but you shouldn’t have taken my son in that kind of bitterness.”

    She cursed, “May God do the worst to you Majembere that you will also die badly just like you killed my son but please give him to me so I can bury him. I no longer eat or even drink because of my child.

    “But you are a big man, how do you not know the people to fight with. What exactly did you want with my son. I will never forgive you.”

    MAJAMBERE VOWS TO DRAG NUP TO COURT

    When theGrapevine spoke to Majambere concerning the allegations, he denied them insisting that at the time they claim that Godfrey was abducted, he was in hospital receiving treatment after succumbing to injuries from angry mob at the burial of late Jakana Nadduli.

    “I am even at my home right now but I want you to know that I’m not a police officer neither am I an army officer. We have already seen the intentions of NUP. Recently they got accident victims and took them to Kenya and claimed they were tortured by government,” he told theGrapevine.

    Majambere however vowed to drag the deceased’s mother and the whole NUP leadership to court for accusing him of what he has no clue about adding that his lawyers are already working on it.

    He added that NUP just wants to kill him that is why they are now falsely accusing him.

    Majambere also denied allegations that he had a gun at the burial of late Jakana Nadduli noting that there is no way he would have had a gun and not shot at those who beat him up that day.

    “They have managed to fail me here in Uganda and so am going to go (to another country) and leave them that’s if they don’t kill me before I leave. Uganda has become a bush let me first run away and find protection.”

    Asked if he has managed to talk to his boss, President Museveni concerning the threats on his life before he runs out of the country, Majambere contended that President Museveni has never been his boss because he (Majambere) doesn’t work in security.

    “I just support NRM and I will never betray it even when NUP comes and attacks me and kills me, let them do so but as for me, I can never denounce NRM. And I’m not ready to do what they (NUP)  want me to do for them.”

    Majambere revealed to theGrapevine that there is something Bobi Wine asked him to do and he refused.

    He however refused to elaborate more on their chemistry and what separated them.

    This comes at a time when a number of opposition members have been abducted and taken by unknown men in drones, the recent being Sheikh Yahaya Mwanje and former presidential candidate, Joseph Kabuleta.

     

    By Kalamira Hope and Sengooba Alirabaki

    Comments

    Continue Reading

    NATIONAL

    NRM HOUSE ON FIRE! Speaker Among Directs Minister Otafiire To Beef Up MP Begumisa Security Over Minister Kawooya Death Threats…

    Published

    on

    L-R: Minister Hanifa Kawooya, Begumisa and Speaker Among

    Annet Anita Among, the Speaker of Parliament has directed Internal Affairs Minister Maj. Gen. Kahinda Otafiire to beef up the security of Mary Begumisa, the Ssembabule district woman Member of Parliament (MP) and her family over several death threats from health junior minister Anifa Kawooya Bangirana.

    Among told parliament that on several occasions, Begumisa has been in her office kneeling and pleading with her to give her an opportunity to raise her matter on the floor of parliament against Minister Kawooya until Thursday morning when she blamed her for being compromised to deny her the opportunity to raise her matter.

    “She cried and also said that I was also compromised not to allow her to speak, I said no this house is yours, you come and speak whatever you want to speak.

    Last week I thought that this issue will be resolved when I told the government chief whip and the Leader of the Opposition to resolve the issue of Hon. Namugga because it is the same issue but nothing has been resolved,” Among said.

    Among was responding to Begumisa’s submission during which she accused minister Kawooya of harassing her, her family members and her supporters because they are against her move to subdivide Ssembabule district to create another district.

    Begumisa told parliament that Kawooya told her supporters that President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni directed cabinet to divide Ssembabule into two districts in the interest of implementing the ongoing Parish Development model as a tool to fight poverty in the region.

    She explained that those who protested her move are being imprisoned while others are on the run including Begumisa’s husband who is always hiding in her car.

    However, Among told parliament that minister Kawooya doesn’t have powers to create new districts because even the local government minister does not have such powers.

    She added that it was resolved to halt the creation of new administrative units like the one Minister Kawooya is fighting for.

    She directed with immediate effect the minister of lands to go to Ssembabule district to stop the demarcation of the boundaries which is allegedly going on because it is illegal.

    Justine Kasule Lumumba, the Minister for General Duties in the Prime Minister’s office, on behalf of the government promised that Begumisa’s security will be beefed it up. She advised women leaders to stop fighting in public because it is shameful.

    She promised to talk to Minister Kawooya.

    Lumumba asked the speaker to also give Kawooya the opportunity to defend herself concerning the allegations brought against her.

     

    By Sengooba Alirabaki

    Comments

    Continue Reading

    like us

    TRENDING

    theGrapevine is a subsidiary of Newco Publications Limited, a Ugandan multimedia group.
    We keep you posted on the latest from Uganda and the World. COPYRIGHT © 2022
    P.O Box 5511, Kampala - Uganda Tel: +256-752 227640 Email: info@thegrapevine.co.ug
    theGrapevine is licenced by Uganda Communications Commission (UCC)