Connect with us

NEWS

I’M POOR HELP ME: Age Limit Law Challenger Mabirizi Asks Ugandans To Help Him With Funds To Pursue The Matter To The East African Court

Published

on

Age limit law challenger Lawyer Male Mabirizi has pleaded with Ugandans to help him with funds to pursue the matter to the East African courts of justice.

Mabirizi wants Ugandans to throw him a hand so that he can proceed with his dream of overturning the controversial age limit law. After the lifting of the age limit, any Ugandan can now stand for presidency even if they are beyond 75 years.

During the launch of the fundraising drive, Mabirizi revealed that the battle to preserve the 1995 Uganda constitution has drained his pockets and he now needs assistance from nationalistic Ugandans.  Today, Mabirizi filed his appeal to the East African courts of justice challenging the Supreme Court of Uganda which stamped the lifting of the age limit. Below is Mabirizi’s full appeal:

IN THE EAST AFRICAN COURT OF JUSTICE

 FIRST INSTANCE DIVISION 

AT ARUSHA-TANZANIA

REFERENCE No.……….…OF 2019

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

VERSUS

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF REFERENCE.

(Under Art. 30 of The Treaty for Establishment of The East African Community & Rule 24 of The East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013)

  1. PARTICULARS & ADDRESS OF THE APPLICANT

The applicant, MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUKA, is a male adult Ugandan lawyer by training, businessman by choice and civically active Ugandan, resident in Kampala, Uganda whose address for purposes of this Reference shall be of C/o Plot 35, Kampala Road, Post Office Building, 5th Floor, Room 501A, Telephone contact +256 787 263 086/+256 752 570 574, Kampala, Uganda.

  • PARTICULARS & ADDRESS OF THE RESPONDENT

The respondent, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA is a Constitutional office set up under Article 119 of the Constitution of The Republic of Uganda, a Partner state, with among others, a function to represent the Government of Uganda in court as well as in other legal proceedings whose address is The Republic of Uganda Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Directorate of Civil Litigation, Bowman House, Parliament Avenue, Kampala.

  • THE SUBJECT/ALLEGATIONS OF THE REFERENCE

Your applicant alleges that the several actions, directives and/or decisions of all the three organs of Government and State of The Republic of Uganda; the Parliament, The Executive and The Judiciary in conceptualizing, processing, pursuing and upholding of The Uganda Constitution (Amendment) Act 2018 were/are unlawful and/or are infringements of the provisions of The Treaty for Establishment of The East African Community. In Particular:

  1. The actions of;
  2. Curtailing and undermining Uganda citizens’ participation in their constitutional amendment process through;
  3. preventing the applicant, with proper identification documents, access to the parliament’s gallery during the seeking of leave and presentation of The Bill,
  4. failing to take all reasonable steps in the circumstances to ensure public participation of all Ugandans in the Constitutional amendment process, and
  5. using the police and the military to disperse meetings organized by members of parliament and other political players to enhance public participation of citizens.
  6. Securing an amendment of the Constitution through violence and/or threatened violence by;
  7. Undermining the integrity of Parliament,
  8. allowing defence forces to participate in partisan politics,
  9. deploying military in and outside parliament and throughout the entire country,
  10.  derogating the Member of Parliaments’ fundamental rights against torture, inhuman and degrading treatment,
  11. invasion of Parliament by Uganda People’s Defence Forces on 27/09/2017, the day of seeking for leave to introduce a private members bill,
  12. assaulting, torturing and inhumanly treating members of Parliament by the Uganda Police Uganda People’s Defece Forces,
  13. arresting members of parliament from the House and detaining them without any charge whatsoever and
  14. reconvening Parliament on the same day and in the same place where Uganda People’s Defence Forces had beaten up, tortured and arrested members of parliament.
  15. Not Complying with strict procedures contained in the Uganda Constitution, Acts of Parliament ad Rules of Procedure of Parliament by;
  16. proceeding in a multi-party parliament in absence of the leader of Opposition, Opposition Chief Whip and other opposition members,
  17. allowing ruling party members of parliament to cross the floor and sit at the opposition side,
  18. entertaining presentation and grant of leave to table a Private Members Bill which had the effect of charging money from the consolidated fund of Uganda,
  19. allowing signing of the report by new members on the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee after it had finished hearings from the public,
  20. allowing presentation of a Parliamentary committee report outside the 45 days’ period,  
  21. proceeding on a motion to suspend a rule of Procedure of Parliament without secondment,
  22. closing the debate on The Bill before each and every member of parliament who wanted to debate and present the views of their constituents,
  23. refusing to close all the doors to the Chambers of parliament before voting on the 2nd reading and 3rd readings,
  24. failing to separate the 2nd reading and the 3rd reading by at least fourteen sitting days of parliament,
  25. Flouting the strict pre-assent mandatory conditions and procedures through;
  26. the Speaker’s preparing and forwarding to the president of a Certificate of Compliance different from what was agreed to by the entire parliament,
  27. failing to refer the Bill to the referendum of the people,
  28. assenting to the Bill by the President on strength of an invalid certificate of compliance and in absence of proof that 14 sitting days were separated between the 2nd and 3rd readings and/or that the matter had been referred to a referendum,

contravene and undermine the fundamental and operational principles of the community which include good governance including adherence to the principles of democracy, the rule of law, accountability, transparency and the maintenance  of universally accepted standards of human rights.

  • The action/decision and the process of reaching the decision of The Uganda Supreme Court upholding part of The Constitution (Amendment) Act, 2018 which resulted from the above stated actions in the majority part its decision dated 18th April 2019 contravene and undermine the fundamental and operational principles of the community which include good governance including adherence to the principles of democracy, the rule of law, accountability, transparency and the maintenance of universally accepted standards of human rights.
  • The actions/decision of Uganda Constitutional and Supreme Courts in;
  • evicting the applicant from court seats occupied by representatives of other parties, only on ground of his being self-represented,
  • failing to hear and determine the Constitutional petition filed by the applicant expeditiously,
  • favouring the respondent in all their processes and proceedings as against the applicant,
  • failing to deliver judgments within 60 days stated by their Judicial Code of conduct,
  • delivering and upholding judgments which were stale/expired by virtue of delivering them outside the mandatory 60 days,
  • awarding professional fees to all petitioners except the applicant only on account of his being self-represented,
  • failing to compensate the applicant the expenses incurred in processing and presenting the appeal to the Supreme Court of Uganda,
  • failing to take all steps to ensure that objections to participation of some Justices of The two courts in the proceedings are adequately addressed,
  • allowing judicial officers who have conflict of interest in the matter to sit as Justices in the case and to purport to determine the dispute,
  • allowing a judicial officer suffering from infirmity of the body to purport to write and deliver judgment,
  •  refusing or neglecting to set aside the purported judgments entered by such conflicted justices despite applying for the same,

contravene and undermine the fundamental and operational principles of the community which include good governance including adherence to the principles of democracy, the rule of law, accountability, transparency, social justice, equal opportunities, gender equality, as well as the recognition, promotion and the maintenance  of universally accepted standards of human rights.

  • SUMMARY OF THE POINTS OF LAW ON WHICH THE APPLICATION IS BASED

Your Applicant States that:

  1. As a mandatory requirement enshrined under Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of The Treaty for Establishment of The East African Community, The Republic of Uganda, a partner state of the Community, is obliged and mandated to abide by, apply and uphold the fundamental and operational principles of the community which include good governance including adherence to the principles of democracy, the rule of law, accountability, transparency, social justice, equal opportunities, gender equality, as well as the recognition, promotion and the maintenance  of universally accepted standards of human rights.
  2. Pursuant to the above obligation and Duty, The Republic of Uganda has maintained its Constitution entitled the Uganda 1995 Constitution under which;
    1. the people of Uganda in the Preamble recall their history which has been characterised by political and constitutional instability, recognize their  struggles against the forces of tyranny, oppression and exploitation, express commitment  to building a better future by establishing a socioeconomic and political order through a popular and durable national Constitution based on the principles of unity, peace, equality, democracy, freedom, social justice and progress, speak to exercise of their sovereign and inalienable right to determine the form of governance for their country, and after stating that they had fully participated in the Constitution-making process, adopted, enacted and gave to themselves and their posterity, the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, on 22/09/1995, 
    1. paragraph 2(i) of The National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy provides thatThe State shall be based on democratic principles which empower and encourage the active participation of all citizens at all levels in their own governance,
    1. article 1 clearly places the sovereign authority of Uganda in the people and states that power belongs to the people who exercise it in accordance with the constitution who are to only be governed by their consent and in accordance with the constitution,
    1. article 2 provides for the supremacy of the constitution which binds all persons and organs in Uganda and anything contrary to it is declared null and void,
    1. article 3(2) provides thatany person who, singly or in concert with others, by any violent or other unlawful means, suspends, overthrows, abrogates or amends this Constitution or any part of it or attempts to do any such act, commits the offence of treason and shall be punished according to law,
    1. article 3(3) places a right and duty uponall citizens of Uganda at all times to defend the Constitution and, in particular, to resist any person or group of persons seeking to overthrow the established constitutional order; and to do all in their power to restore the Constitution after it has been suspended, overthrown, abrogated or amended contrary to its provisions,
    1. article 8A obliges the Uganda state and government to govern Uganda in line with National Objectives and Directive Principles of State policy,
    1. article 20 provides that Fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual are inherent and not granted by the State and that The rights and freedoms of the individual and groups enshrined in Chapter Four shall be respected, upheld and promoted by all organs and agencies of Government and by all persons,
    1. article 24 provides that no person shall be subjected to any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,
    1. article 28(1) requires that in the determination of civil rights and obligations or any criminal charge, a person shall be entitled to a fair, speedy and public hearing before an independent and impartial court or tribunal established by law,
    1. article 29(1)(d-e) and (2)(a) provide that Every person shall have the right to freedom to assemble and to demonstrate together with others peacefully and unarmed and to petition; and freedom of association which shall include the freedom to form and join associations or unions, including trade unions and political and other civic organisations and that  every Ugandan shall have the right to move freely throughout Uganda and to reside and settle in any part of Uganda,
    1. article 43(2) provides that public interest shall not permit political persecution,  detention without trial and any limitation of the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms prescribed by Chapter four of the Constitution beyond what is acceptable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society, or what is provided in the Constitution.
    1. article 44(a & c) protect the freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the right to fair hearing from being derogated in any circumstances,
    1. article 66(3) provides that the administrative expenses of the Electoral Commission, including salaries, allowances and pensions payable to or in respect of persons serving with the commission, shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund,
    1. articles 69(1) and 69(2)(b) give Ugandans a right to choose a political system of their choice which are a movement system, multiparty system or any other democratic system of governance, 
    1. article 71 spells out the principles upon which a multi party system of governance will be run,
    1. article 74 provides for a change of a political system through referenda and indeed in 2005, Ugandans voted to be governed through a multi-party political system,
    1. article 75 prohibits declaration and existence of a single party state,
    1. article 79(1) requires parliament to only pass laws subject to the constitution,
    1. article 79(3) makes it a function of parliament to protect the constitution and promote democratic governance (which include making constitutionally compliant laws),
    1. article 82A creates the office of the leader of the opposition in parliament and gives parliament powers to determine his/her functions,
    1.  article 89(1) provides that except as otherwise prescribed by the Constitution or any law consistent with this Constitution, any question proposed for decision of Parliament shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present and voting in a manner prescribed by rules of procedure made by Parliament under article 94 of the Constitution.
    1. Article 90(3)(c) gives committees of Parliamentpowers of the High Court for enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, affirmation or otherwise, compelling the production of documents and issuing a commission or request to examine witnesses abroad,
    1. article 91(3) requires the president within thirty days after a bill is presented to him or her to either assent to the bill or return the bill to Parliament with a request that the bill or a particular provision of it be reconsidered by Parliament,
    1. article 93 provides inter alia thatparliament shall not, unless the bill or the motion is introduced on behalf of the Government proceed upon a bill, including an amendment bill, that makes provision for the imposition of a charge on the Consolidated Fund or other public fund of Uganda or the alteration of any such charge otherwise than by reduction or proceed upon a motion, including an amendment to a motion, the effect of which would be to make provision for any of the above purpose.
    1. article 94(1) provides thatsubject to the provisions of the Constitution, Parliament may make rules to regulate its own procedure, including the procedure of its committees,
    1. article 95(2) provides thata session of Parliament shall be held at such place within Uganda and shall commence at such time as the Speaker may, by proclamation, appoint,
    1. article 97(1) provides thatThe Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, members of Parliament and any other person participating or assisting in or acting in connection with or reporting the proceedings of Parliament or any of its committees shall be entitled to such immunities and privileges as Parliament shall by law prescribe,
    1. article 108A creates the position of Prime minister and among his/her functions is to be a leader of government business in parliament,
    1. article 126(1) providesthatJudicial power is derived from the people and shall be exercised by the courts established under this Constitution in the name of the people and in conformity with law and with the values, norms and aspirations of the people,
    1. article 106(3) provides thatthe salary, allowances and other benefits granted to a President under this article shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund,
    1. article 126(2) provides that in adjudicating cases of both a civil and criminal nature, the courts shall do so subject to the law,
    1. article 128(1) & (2) provides thatin the exercise of judicial power, the courts shall be independent and shall not be subject to the control or direction of any person or authority and that no person or authority shall interfere with the courts or judicial officers in the exercise of their judicial functions,
    1. article 128(5) provides thatthe administrative expenses of the judiciary, including all salaries, allowances, gratuities and pensions payable to or in respect of persons serving in the judiciary, shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund,
    1. article 137(3) provides thata person who alleges that an Act of Parliament or any other law or anything in or done under the authority of any law, or any act or omission by any person or authority, is inconsistent with or in contravention of a provision of the Constitution, may petition the constitutional court for a declaration to that effect, and for redress where appropriate,
    1. article 137(7) provides that Upon a petition being made, the Court of Appeal shall proceed to hear and determine the petition as soon as possible and may, for that purpose, suspend any other matter pending before it,
    1. article 144(2)(a) provides thata judicial officer may be removed from office for inability to perform the functions of his or her office arising from infirmity of body or mind,
    1. article 208(2) inter alia provides that the Uganda Peoples Defence Forces shall be a disciplined, non-partisan and subordinate to civilian authority,
    1. article 209 sets out the functions of the Uganda Peoples Defence Forces major of which is to protect the territorial integrity of Uganda,
    1. article 211(3) inter alia provides that the Uganda Police Force shall be a disciplined, non-partisan and professional,
    1. article 212 sets out the functions of the Uganda Police Force as protecting life and property, preserving law and order, prevent and detect crime and to cooperate with civilian authority,
    1. article 221 provides thatit shall be the duty of the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces and any other armed force established in Uganda, the Uganda Police Force and any other police force, the Uganda Prisons Service, all intelligence services and the National Security Council to observe and respect human rights and freedoms in the performance of their functions,
    1. article 259 provides thatsubject to the provisions of the Constitution, Parliament may amend by way of addition, variation or repeal, any provision of the Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down in Chapter 18 and that the Constitution shall not be amended except by an Act of Parliament the sole purpose of which is to amend the Constitution, and the Act has been passed in accordance with Chapter 18,
    1. article 260 requires that a bill for an Act of Parliament seeking to amend, among others articles 1, 2 and 260 shall not be taken as passed unless it is supported at the second and third readings in Parliament by not less than two thirds of all members of Parliament and it has been referred to a decision of the people and approved by them in a referendum,
    1. article 263(1) provides thatthe votes on the second and third readings referred to in articles 260 and 261 of the Constitution shall be separated by at least fourteen sitting days of Parliament,
    1.  article 263(2)(a) prohibit the president from assenting to a constitutional amendment Bill which has not been passed in compliance with chapter Eighteen of The Constitution and in particular he is required to only assent if;
      1. The bill is accompanied by a certificate of the Speaker that the provisions of Chapter 18 have been complied with in relation to it; and
      1. in the case of a bill to amend a provision to which article 260 or 261 of the Constitution applies, it is accompanied by a certificate of the Electoral Commission that the amendment has been approved at a referendum or, as the case may be, ratified by the district councils in accordance with Chapter 18.
  3. Pursuant to the above provisions of the Uganda Constitution, The Acts of Parliament Act, Cap. 2, Laws of Uganda was enacted and came into force on 12/12/2000 whose:
  4. Section 8 requires that as soon as possible after a bill has been passed by Parliament, the clerk shall cause the text of the bill as passed to be sent to the Government printer who shall print ten copies of the bill on vellum or on paper of enduring quality and send the copies as printed to the clerk who shall on receiving the copies cause to be made in the copies such corrections as relate to misprints, typographical errors and wrong references, if any, as are necessary, carefully compare the copies with the text of the bill as passed, if the copies are found to be correct sign on each copy a statement in the form set out in Part I of the Second Schedule to this Act and cause the copies to be presented to the President for assent.
  5. Section 9(1) provides that The President shall, subject to article 91 or 263 of the Constitution, assent to the bill presented to him or her under section 8 by signing on each copy of the bill a statement in the form set out in Part II of the Second Schedule to the Act.
  6. Section 16(3) provides a certificate required to be made by the Speaker of Parliament by article 263 of the Constitution in respect of a bill passed in accordance with article 260 of the Constitution shall be in the form specified in Part VII of the Second Schedule to the Act.
  7. Section 16(5) provides that a certificate of the Electoral Commission required by article 262 of the Constitution in respect of a bill passed in accordance with article 260 of the Constitution shall be in the form specified in Part IX of the Second Schedule to the Act.
  8. Section 16(7) provides that a certificate under this section signed by the Speaker or the chairperson of the Electoral Commission, as the case may be, shall be prima facie evidence of the facts stated in the certificate.
  9. In further pursuance of the above constitutional provisions, Uganda enacted The Administration of Parliament Act, Cap. 257 as amended in 2006, (which amendment commenced on 4th August 2006), whose sections:
  10. 6B provides that the Leader of the Opposition shall be elected by the party in opposition to the Government having the greatest numerical strength in Parliament.
  11. 6D provides that The Leader of the Opposition shall be accorded the status of a Cabinet Minister.
  12. 6E provides, among others, that The principal role of the Leader of the Opposition is to keep the government in check and that he/she shall be a member of the Committee of Parliament responsible for determining and scheduling of business in Parliament and the Committee responsible for appointments and shall hold regular consultations with the Leader of Government Business and the Speaker.
  13. 6G provides that in addition to the provisions of this Part, the Rules of Procedure of Parliament may prescribe other matters in relation to the office of the Leader of the Opposition consistent with the status conferred on the holder by the Act.
  14. 6I establishes the office of a Chief Opposition Whip appointed by the party in opposition to the Government and having the greatest numerical strength in Parliament whose role and functions is to ensure due attendance, participation in proceedings and voting in Parliament of members of the party in opposition to the Government and having the greatest numerical strength in Parliament.
  15. 6J provides that a party in opposition may appoint its party whip and that the role and functions of a party whip is to ensure due attendance, participation in proceedings and voting in Parliament of members of the party.
  16. In further pursuance of the above constitutional and statutory provisions, The Parliament of Uganda regularly makes its own Rules of Procedure the latest ones, for the Uganda 10th Parliament, having been made in 2017 which, among others, provide in their respective Rules:
  17. 7 that The Speaker shall preside at any sitting of the House, preserve order and decorum in the House and shall decide questions of order and practice, that in deciding a point of order or practice, the Speaker shall state reasons for the decision and shall cite any Rule of Procedure or other applicable authority and that the Speaker may invite submissions from Members but no debate shall be permitted on any such submission.
  18.  8 that in case of any doubt and for any question of procedure not provided in these Rules, the Speaker shall decide, having regard to the practices of the House, the Constitutional provisions and practices of other Commonwealth Parliaments in so far as they may be applicable to Uganda’s Parliament, The Speaker’s ruling shall become part of the Rules of Procedure of Parliament until such a time, when a substantive amendment to these Rules is made in respect to the ruling and that The amendment shall be tabled for consideration within three months from the date of the ruling.
  19. 9(2) thatthe seats to the right hand of the Speaker shall be reserved for the Leader of Government Business and Members of the Party in Government.
  20. 9(3) that the seats to the left hand of the Speaker shall be reserved for the Leader of the Opposition and Members of the Opposition party or parties in the House.
  21. 14(1) thatthe principal role of the Leader of the Opposition is to keep the Government in check.
  22. 15(5) thatthe role and functions of the Chief Opposition Whip is to ensure due attendance, participation in proceedings and voting in Parliament of Members of the Party in Opposition to the Government and having the greatest numerical strength in Parliament
  23.  15(8) thatthe role and functions of a Party Whip is to ensure due attendance, participation in proceedings and voting in Parliament of Members of the Party.
  24. 19(4) that the Speaker may, having regard to the state of business of the House, direct that sittings be held outside the period prescribed in sub-rule (3) or on days other than those prescribed in sub rule (2).
  25. 23(1) & 2 thatsubject to these Rules, the sittings of the House or of its Committees shall be public.
  26. 23(2) thatThe Speaker may, with the approval of the House and having regard to national security, order the House to move into closed sitting.
  27. 40(1) that subject to the Constitution, no Bill introduced in the House shall be with the Committee for consideration for more than forty-five days.
  28. 40(2) that if a Committee finds itself unable to complete consideration of any Bill referred to it in sub-rule (1), the Committee may seek extra time from Parliament.
  29. 59(1) that in the House, the question upon a motion or amendment shall not be proposed by the Speaker nor shall the debate on the same commence unless the motion or amendment has been seconded.
  30. 82 provides for behaviour of Members in the House specifically providing that during a sitting, a Member shall enter or leave the House with decorum, a Member shall not cross the Floor of the House or move around unnecessarily, while a Member is speaking, all other Members shall be silent and shall not make unseemly interruptions, when a Member has finished his or her observation he or she shall resume his or her seat.
  31. 88(4) that if a Member is suspended, his or her suspension on the first occasion in a Session shall be for the next three sittings, excluding the sitting in which he or she was suspended.
  32. 98 that Roll call and tally voting shall be held in the following circumstances—at the second and third reading of the Bill for an Act of Parliament to amend a provision of the Constitution, when the Speaker directs a roll call voting to be taken, the bell shall be rung for five minutes, The names of the teller for the “Ayes” and the teller for the “Noes” shall be submitted to the Speaker and the Speaker shall direct the tellers to take seats at designated places, The Speaker shall then direct the doors to be locked and the bar drawn and no Member shall thereafter enter or leave the House until after the roll call vote has been taken, The Speaker shall put the question again and direct the Clerk to call out the names of Members in alphabetical order in the presence of the tellers, When called out, each Member shall, thereupon rise in his or her place and declare, or use a recognizable sign to assent or dissent to the question in the following manner; “I vote Yes”; or, “I vote No”; or, “I Abstain”, or use a recognized sign language and that after the Clerk has read the last name in the list, the tellers shall present the result of the roll call vote to the Speaker who shall thereupon announce the result of the vote to the House.
  33. 123(1) that no question shall be proposed upon any Bill, motion or amendment which has not been introduced or moved by a Minister if the object of the Bill, motion or amendment is to make provision for any of the provisions in Article 93 of the Constitution.
  34. 128(2) that the Committee shall examine the Bill in detail and make all such inquiries in relation to it as the Committee considers expedient or necessary and report to the House within forty five days from the date the Bill is referred to the Committee.
  35. 128(3) thatexcept in cases of very minor amendments, and subject to rule 131, all proposed amendments to a Bill referred to a Committee shall be presented to the Committee by the person proposing the amendment and the Committee shall scrutinize it together with the Bill.
  36. 128(4) that the committee may propose and accept proposed amendments in the bill as it considers fit, if the amendments (including new clauses and new schedules) are relevant to the subject matter of the bill.
  37. 183(1) that there shall be Sectoral Committees of the House, whose Members shall be designated by Whips on basis of Party or Organisation representation and interests of Independent Members in the House at the beginning of every session of Parliament.
  38. 195 thatsubject to any instructions by the House, the deliberations of every Committee shall be confined to the matter referred to it by the House and, in the case of a Committee on a Bill, to the Bill committed to it and any relevant amendments.
  39. 196 thatan instruction to a Committee extending or restricting the order of reference may be moved in the House, after notice, on any day prior to the report of the Committee.
  40. 205(c) that in the exercise of its functions,  a committee— may call any Minister or any person holding public office and private individuals to submit memoranda or appear before them to give evidence.
  41. 230(5)-(7) thatNo person may carry into the gallery a briefcase, firearm or any weapon and that No person shall smoke or read a book or newspaper, draw or stand in the galleries and that  a person so admitted shall act with decorum and dress in a dignified manner.
  42. Paragraphs 2 & 3(d) and 5 of The Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament, Appendix F to The Rules of Procedure of Parliament, members of Parliament;
  43. by virtue of The Oath of allegiance they take, have a duty to be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Republic of Uganda and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and to uphold the law and act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in them,
  44. have a general duty to act in the interests of the nation as a Whole; and special duty to their constituents to take decisions solely in terms of the public interest with no other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends; without any influence in the performance of their duties and at all times to act with objectivity,
  45. are accountable for their decisions and actions to the electorate and are required to submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate,
  46. are required to be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take and should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the public interest clearly demands,
  47. have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their Parliamentary duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest,
  48. are required to promote and support good governance by leadership and example,
  49. are required to base their conduct on full consideration of the public interest, avoid conflict between personal interest and the public interest and resolve any conflict between the two, at once, and in favour of the public interest, and
  50. are also required, at all times to conduct themselves in a manner which will maintain and strengthen the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of Parliament and never undertake any action which may bring the House or its Members generally, into disrepute.
  51. In pursuance of the stated constitutional provisions, the Uganda Judiciary, in 2003 made The Uganda Judicial Code of Ethics which under:
  52. Principle 1 provides that;
  53. an independent Judiciary is indispensable to the proper administration of justice. A Judicial Officer therefore should uphold and exemplify the independence of the Judiciary in its individual and institutional aspects,
  54. a Judicial Officer shall exercise the judicial function independently on the basis of his or her assessment of the facts, and in accordance with conscientious understanding of the law, free of any direct or indirect extraneous influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interference, from any quarter or for any reason.
  55. a Judicial Officer shall reject any attempt, arising from outside the proper judicial process, to influence the decision in any matter before the Judicial Officer for judicial decision,
  56. a Judicial Officer shall be independent of judicial colleagues in respect of decisions which he or she is obliged to make independently, Proper professional consultation shall be excepted, and that
  57. a Judicial Officer shall encourage and uphold safeguards for the discharge of judicial duties in order to maintain and enhance the institutional and operational independence of the judiciary.
  58. Principle 2 provides that;
  59. impartiality is the essence of the judicial function and applies not only to the making of a decision but also to the process by which the decision is made. Justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be done,
  60.  a Judicial Officer shall perform judicial duties without fear, favour, ill-will, bias, or prejudice, shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the legal profession, the litigants and the public, in the impartiality of the Judicial Officer and of the judiciary.  
  61. a judicial Officer shall avoid close personal association with individual members of the legal profession who practice in his or her court, where such association might reasonably give rise to suspicion or appearance of favouritism or partiality.
  62. a Judicial Officer shall refrain from participating in any proceedings in which the impartiality of the Judicial Officer might reasonably be questioned. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing a Judicial Officer shall disqualify himself or herself from participating in any proceedings Where the Judicial Officer has personal knowledge of the disputed facts concerning the proceedings and Where a member of the Judicial Officer’s family is representing a litigant, is a party, or has interest in the outcome of the matter in controversy, in the proceedings.
  63. Principle 3 provides that;
  64. integrity is central to the proper discharge of the judicial office. The behaviour and conduct of a Judicial Officer must re-affirm the peoples faith in the integrity of the judiciary,
  65. a Judicial Officer shall respect and uphold the laws of the country,
  66. a Judicial Officer shall at all time and in every respect be of an upright character and ensure that his or her conduct is above reproach in the view of a reasonable fair minded and informed person,
  67. a Judicial Officer shall exhibit and promote high standards of judicial and personal integrity,
  68. in addition to observing the standards of the Code personally, a Judicial Officer shall encourage, support and help other Judicial Officers to do the same.
  69. Principle 4 provides that;
    1. Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all the activities of a Judicial Officer. A Judicial Officer shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all judicial and personal activities,
    1. a Judicial Officer shall at all time conduct himself or herself in a manner consistent with the dignity of the judicial office, and for that purpose must freely and willingly accept appropriate personal restrictions,
    1. a Judicial Officer shall exhibit and promote high standards of judicial conduct,
    1. a Judicial Officer shall not use or lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance his or her private interests, or the private interests of a member of the family or of anyone else, nor shall a Judicial Officer convey or permit others to convey the impression that anyone is in a special position to improperly influence the Judicial Officer in the performance of judicial duties,
    1. a Judicial Officer shall refrain from conduct and from associating with persons, groups of personsand organisations, which in the mind of a reasonable, fair-minded and informed person, might undermine confidence in the Judicial Officer’s impartiality or otherwise with regard to any issue that may come before the Courts,
    1. a Judicial Officer shall not, without authority of the law or the consent of the parties, carry out investigation of the facts of a case before him or her in the absence of any of the parties, nor communicate with any party to such a case in the absence of the other party
  70. Principle 4 provides that;
  71. all persons are entitled to equal protection of the law. A Judicial Officer shall accord equal treatment to all persons who appear in court, without distinction on unjust discrimination based on the grounds of sex, colour, race, ethnicity, religion, age, social or economic status, political opinion, or disability,  
  72. a Judicial Officer shall not in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice towards any person or group on basis of unjust discrimination.
  73. a judicial Officer shall not be a member of, nor be associated with, any society or organisation that practices unjust discrimination
  74. Principle 6 provides that;
  75. Competence and diligence are prerequisites to the performance of the judicial office. A Judicial Officer shall give judicial duty precedence over all other activities,  
  76. a Judicial Officer shall endeavour to maintain and enhance knowledge, skill and personal qualities necessary for the proper and competent performance and discharge of judicial duties,
  77. a Judicial Officer shall promptly dispose of the business of the court, but in so doing, must ensure that justice prevails. Protracted trial of a case must be avoided wherever possible. Where a judgment is reserved, it should be delivered within 60 days, unless for good reason, it is not possible to do so,
  78. a Judicial Officer shall maintain order and decorum in court, and shall be patient and dignified in all proceedings, and shall require similar conduct of advocates, witnesses, court staff and other persons in attendance.
  • Your applicant states that in carrying out the actions and decisions complained against, the Executive, Parliament and Judiciary of Uganda contravened, neglected and flouted the publicly made laws as stated in this Reference.
  • Your Applicant further states that at all steps and intervals of carrying out the above actions and decisions, he has consistently taken steps to halt and/or reverse them but in vain and in particular:
  •  He resisted being denied access to Parliament but was threatened with an arrest.
  • After the purported passing of the Bill by Parliament on 20th December 2017, he filed Constitutional Petition No. 49 of 2017 on 22nd December 2017 to reverse the actions.
  • On sensing that the President was likely to purportedly assent to the Bill before determination of the petition, he filed Constitutional Applications No. 45 & 46 of 2017 for temporary and interim orders, respectively, which court failed to fix until hearing of the petition five months away.
  • The applicant wrote letters seeking for appointment to meet Lady Justice Elizabeth Musoke and Mr. Justice Cheborion Barishaki over their recusal but none was arranged.
  • When the applicant was being evicted from court seats, he protested.
  • When the respective courts were engaging in unfairness, the applicant always protested.
  • When the purported judgment of the Constitutional Court was delivered on 26th July 2018, the applicant filed his notice of appeal on 27th July 2018.
  • When the Supreme Court unilaterally extended the time within which the respondent was to file his submissions, the applicant protested.
  • When the Supreme Court changed the time of the applicant’s rejoinder from 40 minutes agreed upon at conferencing to 20 minutes, the applicant protested.
  • When sixty days expired without judgment, the applicant wrote to court demanding for reasons why judgment was not delivered within time.
  • The applicant filed in High Court Misc. Cause No. 95 of 2019 to compel the Chief Justice to cause the Judgment to be delivered.
  • The moment the applicant came to know that Katureebe, CJ, Arach-Amoko, JSC and Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC, were not fit to hear and determine his Constitutional appeal, he filed Uganda Supreme Court Constitutional Application No. 06 of 2019 to set aside their respective judgments and to review the decision which court has refused or neglected to fix the application for hearing despite the applicant’s request.
  • The applicant knows and states that under Uganda law, a law which is being challenged in Court remains uncertain until all the legal proceedings challenging it are concluded, meaning that the Constitution(Amendment) Act 2018 is not yet a crystalized law in Uganda.
  • The applicant states that he is empowered under Article 30 of The Treaty for Establishment of The East African Community to refer for determination by the Court, the legality of any Act, regulation, directive, decision or action of a Partner State or an institution of the Community on the grounds that such Act, regulation, directive, decision or action is unlawful or is an infringement of the provisions of the Treaty.
  • THE APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE

The applicant’s evidencewillamong others contain the applicant’s affidavit in support of this reference and such evidence as may be adduced by parties at the hearing of the Reference.

  • THE RELIEFS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT.

Therefore, your applicant prays that court:

  1. Makes declarations that:
    1. The several actions, directives and/or decisions of all the three organs of Government and State of The Republic of Uganda; the Parliament, The Executive and The Judiciary of The Republic of Uganda in conceptualizing, processing, pursuing and upholding of The Uganda Constitution (Amendment) Act 2018 are unlawful and/or are an infringement of the provisions of The Treaty for Establishment of The East African Community, particularly, the actions of;
      1. Curtailing and undermining Uganda citizens’ participation in their constitutional amendment process through;
      1. preventing the applicant, with proper identification documents, access the parliament’s gallery during the seeking of leave and presentation of The Bill,
      1. failing to take all reasonable steps in the circumstances to ensure public participation of all Ugandans in the Constitutional amendment process, and
      1. using the police and the military to disperse meetings organized by members of parliament and other political players to enhance public participation of citizens.
    1. Securing an amendment of the Constitution through violence and/or threatened violence by;
  2. Undermining the integrity of Parliament,
  3. allowing defence forces to participate in partisan politics,
  4. deploying military in and outside parliament and throughout the entire country,
  5. derogating the Member of Parliaments’ fundamental rights against torture, inhuman and degrading treatment through,
  6. invasion of Parliament by Uganda People’s Defence Forces on 27/09/2017, the day of seeking for leave to introduce a private members bill,
  7. assaulting, torturing and inhumanly treating members of Parliament by the Uganda Police Uganda People’s Defece Forces,
  8. arresting members of parliament from the House and detaining them without any charge whatsoever and
  9. reconvening Parliament on the same day and in the same place where Uganda People’s Defence Forces had beaten up, tortured and arrested members of parliament.
    1. Curtailing and undermining Uganda citizens’ participation in their constitutional amendment process through,
      1. preventing the applicant, with proper identification documents, access the parliament’s gallery during the seeking of leave and presentation of The Bill, and
      1. failing to take all reasonable steps in the circumstances to ensure public participation,
    1. Not Complying with strict procedures contained in the Uganda Constitution, Acts of Parliament ad Rules of Procedure of Parliament by;
  10. proceeding in a multi-party parliament in absence of the leader of Opposition, Opposition Chief Whip and other opposition members,
  11. allowing ruling party members of parliament to cross the floor and sit at the opposition side,
  12. entertaining presentation and grant of leave to table a Private Members Bill which had the effect of charging money from the consolidated fund of Uganda,
  13. allowing signing of the report by new members on the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee after it had finished hearings from the public,
  14. allowing presentation of a Parliamentary committee report outside the 45 days’ period, 
  15. proceeding on a motion to suspend a rule of Procedure of Parliament without secondment,
  16. closing the debate on The Bill before each and every member of parliament who wanted to debate and present the views of their constituents,
  17. refusing to close all the doors to the Chambers of parliament before voting on the 2nd reading and 3rd reading, and
  18. failing to separate the 2nd reading and the 3rd reading by at least fourteen sitting days of parliament;
  19. Flouting the strict pre-assent mandatory conditions and procedures through;
  20. the Speaker’s preparing and forwarding to the president of a Certificate of Compliance different from what was agreed to by the entire parliament,
  21. failing to refer the Bill to the referendum of the people, and
  22. assenting to the Bill by the President on strength of an invalid certificate of compliance and in absence of proof that 14 sitting days were separated between the 2nd and 3rd readings and/or that the matter had been referred to a referendum,

contravene and undermine the fundamental and operational principles of the community which include good governance including adherence to the principles of democracy, the rule of law, accountability, transparency and the maintenance  of universally accepted standards of human rights.

  1. The action/decision and the process of reaching the decision of The Uganda Constitutional and Supreme Courts upholding part of The Constitution (Amendment) Act, 2018 which resulted from the above stated actions in the majority part their respective decisions dated 26th July 2018 and 18th April 2019, respectively, contravene and undermine the fundamental and operational principles of the community which include good governance including adherence to the principles of democracy, the rule of law, accountability, transparency and the maintenance of universally accepted standards of human rights.
    1. The actions/decision of Uganda Constitutional and Supreme Courts in;
      1. evicting the applicant from court seats occupied by representatives of other parties, only on ground of his being self-represented,
      1. failing to hear and determine the Constitutional petition filed by the applicant expeditiously,
      1. favouring the respondent in all their processes and proceedings as against the applicant,
      1. failing to deliver judgments within 60 days stated by their Judicial Code of conduct,
      1. delivering and upholding judgments which were stale/expired by virtue of delivering them outside the mandatory 60 days,
      1. awarding professional fees to all petitioners except the applicant only on account of his being self-represented,
      1. failing to compensate the applicant the expenses incurred in processing and presenting the appeal to the Supreme Court of Uganda,
      1. failing to take all steps to ensure that objections to participation of some Justices of The two courts in the proceedings are adequately addressed,
      1. allowing judicial officers who have conflict of interest in the matter to sit as Justices in the case and to purport to determine the dispute,
      1. allowing a judicial officer suffering from infirmity of the body to purport to write and deliver judgment,
      1. refusing or neglecting to set aside the purported judgments entered by such conflicted justices despite applying for the same,

contravene and undermine the fundamental and operational principles of the community which include good governance including adherence to the principles of democracy, the rule of law, accountability, transparency, social justice, equal opportunities, gender equality, as well as the recognition, promotion and the maintenance  of universally accepted standards of human rights.

  • Issues an order annulling The Republic of Uganda’s  Constitution (Amendment) Act 2018 on account of being conceptualized, initiated, processed, enacted and assented to in contravention of the fundamental and operational principles of the East African community.
  • Issues a Permanent injunction against the Government and state of The Republic of Uganda from implementing the Constitution (Amendment) Act 2018 on account of being conceptualized, initiated, processed, enacted and assented to in contravention of the fundamental and operational principles of the East African community.
  • Awards general damages to the applicant due to disturbance and anguish caused to the applicant arising out of the actions complained against in this Reference.
  • Awards costs of the Reference to the applicant.
  • Awards an interest of 25% per annum on the general damages and costs from the time of filing this Reference till payment in full.
  • REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICANT

At the filing of the Reference, the applicant is acting for himself and will appear in person at hearing of The Reference.

Dated and Signed at Kampala this 03 day of May 2019 by:

…………………………

MALE H. MABIRIZI K.KIWANUKA                                                                                               APPLICANT.

Lodged at The East African Court of Justice Kampala sub-Registry this……………day of……………….2019.

…………….

REGISTRAR,

THE EAST AFRICAN COURT OF JUSTICE.

Drawn and filed by;                                                                                                       MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUKA

C/o Plot 35, Kampala Road, Post Office Building, 5th Floor, Room 501A,              Tel +256 787 263 086/+256 752 570 574, Kampala, Uganda.

IN THE EAST AFRICAN COURT OF JUSTICE

 FIRST INSTANCE DIVISION 

AT ARUSHA-TANZANIA

REFERENCE No.……….…OF 2019

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

VERSUS

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA:::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE REFERENCE.

I, MALE H. MABIRIZI K.KIWANUKA, of C/o Plot 35, Kampala Road, Post Office Building, 5th Floor, Room 501A, Tel +256 787 263 086/+256 752 570 574, Kampala, Uganda, do hereby affirm on oath and state as follows:

  1. THAT I am a male adult Ugandan of Sound mind, a resident of Kampala, Uganda, a lawyer by profession, having graduated at Makerere University in 2012 with a Bachelor of Laws (Honours) degree and the applicant in this reference.
  2. THAT I am also a civically active Ugandan who has been closely following the constitutional trends in my country, Uganda ever since my secondary school.
  3. THAT it is in the above capacities, which give me the competency to depose to this affidavit, that I depose to this affidavit in support of this reference to The East African Court of Justice.
  • THAT as a lawyer, a civically active Ugandan, I continuously followed all the events around The Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 2 of 2017, which culminated into The Constitution (Amendment) Act, 2018, since information came to public that it was to be introduced through the night of 20th December 2017 when the parliament of Uganda purported to pass it as a law and the purported presidential assent.
  • THAT my following of the events was through seeing and viewing the live parliament broadcasts at Uganda Broadcasting Corporation television-the national broadcaster, live feeds from the twitter and videos of the parliament and its Parliamentary and Legal Affairs committee proceedings.
  • THAT on Thursday 21st September 2017, I went to Parliament of Uganda at around 1.30 pm to view the proceedings by the gallery.
  • THAT when I reached the check point, the police men and women asked or my national identity card which I availed to them and I submitted to be served and they searched my whole body.
  • THAT I was then asked where I was heading to and I answered that I was going to the gallery to view the proceedings of seeking for leave to by Hon. Raphael Magyezi to table The Constitution (Amendment) Bill No. 2 of 2017.
  • THAT I was told that I could not access the gallery because it had been closed to the public and that unless I have a clearance from the speaker of parliament, there would be no way I would exceed that check point.
  1. THAT when I insisted that it was my right to be in the gallery since parliament acts on behalf of the citizens, they threatened me with an arrest which forced me to go away.
  1. THAT I resorted to watching the proceedings of parliament from televised telecast of Uganda Broadcasting Corporation, the national broadcaster.
  1. THAT on that day, the house had some other matters it considered and when the matter of The Constitution (Amendment) Bill No. 2 of 2017 was hinted upon, opposition members sang the national anthem several times.
  2. THAT when the singing persisted, the speaker adjourned the house to Tuesday the 26th of September 2017 at 2.00pm.
  3. THAT again, on Tuesday 26th September 2017, I went to parliament, this time at around 1.20 pm to view the proceedings by the gallery.
  1. THAT again, when I reached the check point, the police men and women asked or my national identity card which I availed to them and I submitted to be served and they searched my whole body.
  1. THAT I was then asked where I was heading and I answered that I was going to the gallery to view the proceedings of seeking for leave to by Hon. Raphael Magyezi to table The Constitution (Amendment) Amendment Bill No. 2 of 2017.
  1. THAT I was again told that I could not access the gallery because it had been closed to the public and that unless I have a clearance from the speaker of parliament, there would be no way I would exceed that check point.
  2. THAT when I insisted that it was my right to be in the gallery since parliament acts on behalf of the citizens, they this time tried to arrest me and I was only save by running away.
  3. THAT I again resorted to watching the proceedings of parliament from televised telecast of Uganda Broadcasting Corporation, the national broadcaster.
  4. THAT the house considered other business and when the business of constitutional amendment reached, the house became rowdy and the house was adjourned to the next day.
  • THAT on 27th day of September 2017, matters were different, the national broadcaster only broadcasted the initial preparatory steps and then went off.
  • THAT being eager to know what was going on, I logged on into twitter where I could get live feeds of videos from the media houses which had representatives in parliament.
  • THAT when the speaker entered, the first item  was communication from the chair wherein she stated that she had suspended 25 members from 3 consecutive sittings and she read their names and asked them to move out.
  • THAT then, the leader of opposition raised on a point of procedure advising that the suspension would start in the next sitting but the speaker seemed not to mind.
  • THAT I then saw the speaker stating that she had adjourned the house for 30 minutes to allow the suspended members leave the house.
  • THAT no sooner had the speaker left, than a group of smartly suit dressed men entered the chamber of parliament and started to un-discriminatively beat each person who was seated on the opposition side.
  • THAT the violence ensued and members on the opposition rose in self defence using microphone stands and chairs but they were over powered by these men.
  • THAT most of the opposition members were arrested by police and taken to different destinations which I could not know through my live twitter feed.
  • THAT after about an hour, the speaker came back to the house and the matter of The Constitution (amendment) Bill No. 2 of 2017 was again read.
  • THAT the Speaker noted that some damage had been done in the chamber and that she would punish the culprits.
  • THAT the leader of opposition rose and informed the house that most of their members had been beaten up and tortured by soldiers who were not staff of the surgeant- at-arms, arrested and taken to unknown destinations.
  • THAT the speaker who seemed not be concerned ordered the clerk to read the next item on the order paper.
  • THAT at that time, the leader of opposition with all the opposition members left the house leaving only ruling party members of parliament.
  • THAT in a surprising way, I saw the speaker, the lady whom I respected as a veteran lawyer, advocate and a vanguard of constitutionalism advising the ruling party Members of parliament to cross and sit on the opposition side since the opposition side had left.
  • THAT the speaker, unshaken by absence of the opposition in a multi-party parliament, proceeded and called Hon. Raphael Magyezi to make his application for leave to table The Constitution (Amendment) Bill No. 2 of 2017.
  • THAT in absence of the opposition, Hon. Magyezi proceeded to make his application, stating that the law is intended to remove the age limits for a president so that any person above the age of 18 years can become president.
  • THAT he also explained that he wanted to remove age limits on the local government chairpersons whose minimum age is currently 36 years.
  • THAT he further explained that the days given to the supreme court to determine a presidential election petition need to be extended from 3 days from the date of filing of the petition to fourty five years.
  • THAT he thus requested that parliament gives him leave to table the bill since, according to him, the bill will cure the discrimination against the youth and the aged who are not allowed to contest for presidency and local government. 
  • THAT the motion was seconded and agreed to by the ruling party members of parliament who were the only ones in parliament.
  • THAT consequently, the speaker made a ruling that leave had been granted to Hon. Raphael Magyezi to present a private member’s bill titled The Constitution (amendment) Bill No. 2 of 2017 but reminded members that the matter concerned the sovereignty of the people hence people had to be central. A copy of The Certified Record of Proceedings of Parliament for 27th September 2017 is hereto attached and marked ‘A’
  • THAT while giving evidence in the Constitutional Court, the Uganda Chief of Defence Forces admitted that he sent army men and officers in Parliament and that they are the ones or carried out the violent actions complained against.
  • THAT on Tuesday 3rd October 2017, I watched parliament proceedings on Uganda broadcasting Corporation Television and one of the items on the Order paper was presentation of a Private Members Bill entitled The Constitution (amendment) Bill No. 2 of 2017.
  • THAT again, the leader of opposition and all members were not in parliament and as usual, the speaker advised ruling party members to cross and sit at the opposition side in parliament.
  • THAT Hon. Magyezi stated that he had obtained a certificate of Financial implications and the Bill had been published in the Gazette and ready to go for the first reading. A copy of Bill as it appeared in the Gazette is hereto attached and marked ‘B’
  • THAT Hon. Magyezi read the bill for the first time and the speaker sent it to the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee of parliament for further scrutiny.
  • THAT the speaker also informed members that the matters in the bill were so sensitive to the entire country and directed them to consult their electorates before he bill is presented for the 2nd reading. A copy of part of The Certified Record of Proceedings of Parliament for 2nd October 2017 is hereto attached and marked ‘C’
  • THAT I started to closely monitor the proceedings of the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee in respect to the bill and I could always get live feeds on twitter and sometimes watch videos of the proceedings since parliament was a no-go area, the military having been deployed all over the place.
  • THAT except the delegation from the ruling party of National Resistance movement and a pressure group called Kick Age limit out of the Constitution, (KALOC), all other people who appeared before the committee opposed the amendment.
  • THAT further, former presidential candidates Dr. Kiiza Besigye and Rt. Hon. Amama Mbabazi did not attend the committee proceedings despite the invitation.
  • THAT the former prime minister, RT. Hon. Appolo Nsibambi declined to attend the committee telling it that it was acting in bad faith and that it was therefore not proper for him to appear before it.
  • THAT for the law dons of Makerere University, they informed the committee that they did not want to associate themselves with a bill was out rightly unconstitutional and crafted in bad faith.
  • THAT the Inter-Religious council of Uganda also declined to appear before the committee reasoning that their stand is that the matter should be referred to a referendum.
  • THAT at one point, the committee resolved to go and conduct regional consultations to receive the views of Ugandans but I did not see that happen.
  • THAT in the final days of the committee’s work, the government chief whip. Hon Ruth Nankabirwa, presented to parliament, which was chaired by The Deputy Speaker, Hon. Jacob Oulanyah, new names to be added on the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee.
  • THAT despite the complaints from the members of the opposition that this was unconstitutional since the committee had already done so much work on the bill, the Deputy speaker ruled in favour of the ruling party and the new names became part of the committee.
  • THAT during pendency of the Bill, I saw the Uganda Police and the military dispersing several meetings intended to facilitate public participation and restricting movement of members of Parliament.
  • THAT on the last day of the committee’s consultation, it visited State house Entebbe where they met President Yoweri Museveni to receive his views about the bill.
  • THAT the president showed his support to the bill arguing that the constitution discriminates the aged and the youth yet the longer a person stays in power, the more experienced he/she becomes.
  • THAT he said that leadership is not like a marathon that a person should run a short distance and then hand the stick to another person, but a long run if one is to do some developmental work.
  • THAT without his suggestion, the chairperson of the committee Hon. Oboth-Oboth asked him what he thinks about extending a leadership term from 5 years to 7 years.
  • THAT the president said that he supported it because he thinks five years are minimal for a person to have implemented his/her manifesto.
  • THAT the president however cautioned the committee that that proposal can be discussed in the future and not at this time.
  • THAT during the recess of parliament, I watched on television the speaker meeting a team from African Union Peer African Review mechanism at parliamentary buildings.
  • THAT she informed them that she regretted the incident of 27th September 2017 when the forces invaded parliament and said that she had sought an explanation from the president.
  • THAT in the speaker’s first chairing of the house after the recess, she regretted the events of 27th September 2017 and promised that they will never happen again.
  • THAT on 14th December 2017, the Speaker announced in the house that the Constitution (Amendment) Bill No. 2 of 2017 would come for the 2nd reading on 18th December 2017.
  • THAT she said that on that day, the house would convene starting from 9.00am in the morning and asked all members to endeavor to attend that sitting.
  • THAT on Monday 18th December 2017, I started watching Uganda Broadcasting Corporation Television at 9.00am, to be able to view what was going to happen to the bill.
  • THAT the speaker entered the parliament chambers after 10.0am and in her address to the house, she warned that if opposition members behave improperly, she would suspend them for seven sittings.
  • THAT several opposition members rose on several points some of which were that there was no way the bill could come for the second reading yet its leave and first reading contravened the constitution.
  • THAT the speaker kept on over ruling each and every point of law raised by the opposition and warned that she would suspend them for seven sittings.
  • THAT later, the speaker adjourned the house to 2.00pm for the 2nd reading of the Constitution (Amendment) Bill No. 2 of 2017.
  • THAT after the adjournment, she said that she had suspended six members from the opposition side for three sittings of parliament and she read out the names.
  • THAT after 2.00pm, the house reconvened and the leader of the opposition asked the speaker to rescind her decision suspending the six members.
  • THAT she reasoned that since the matter was a constitutional amendment of an important article of the constitution, it was only fair that they represent the views of their constituents.
  • THAT the speaker objected to rescind the decision and sated that she had warned the members before the suspension.
  • THAT at this point, the leader of opposition led all leaders of opposition side and moved out of the house leaving the house with only ruling party members.
  • THAT the speaker, again, advised ruling party members to cross the floor and sit on the opposition side since the opposition members had moved out.
  • THAT the speaker allowed the chairman of the Committee, Hon. Oboth-Oboth to read the majority report which he did, in absence of the opposition members of parliament.
  • THAT in the report, which was also signed by the ruling party members who were appointed later, the majority supported the lifting of the age limit so that any person who is a registered voter at the age of 18 and above can contest for the presidency.
  • THAT the report further recommended that the age limitation of local government chairpersons   that sets a minimum of 36 years be removed.
  • THAT committee reasoned that that would remove the discrimination the basis of age and that it will open the political space and promote democracy.
  • THAT the majority also supported the increase of the days within which a person should file a presidential election petition from 10 days to 15 days from the date of declaration of results.
  • THAT the committee further recommended that the das within which the supreme court should declare is findings in a presidential election petition should be increased from 10 to 15 days after filing of the petition.
  • THAT the committee introduced some new terms which were not in the bill and this surprised me since it is not only unconstitutional but contrary to the common sense of mankind.
  • THAT the committee recommended hat from the term of this sitting parliament, the term of parliament should be extended from five years to seven years.
  • THAT the majority also recommended that a referendum should be organized to increase the term of president from fve years to seven years.
  • THAT the committee further recommended that presidential term limits which were scrapped in the year 2005 be restored.
  • THAT all the above recommendations were a creature of the committee as they did not form part of the bill which sent to the committee.
  • THAT further, the above recommendations did not come from any of the witnesses who appeared before the committee but simply created by the Committee.
  • THAT as the majority report was being read, opposition members returned to the house and the ruling party members vacated the opposition seats and the opposition members occupied their seats.
  • THAT after the majority report, one of opposition members rose and asked the speaker to adjourn the house so that members can go and spend the three sitting days internalizing the bill as the rules of procedure require.
  • THAT the government side objected stating that the bill had been sent to the embers’ i-pads three days back and that suffices to amount to three sitting days from the date of tabling.
  • THAT opposition members stated that laying on the table means laying it in the plenary and not on the i-pads as claimed.
  • THAT from there, the Deputy Attorney General, Hon. Mwesigwa Rukutana moved a motion that the rule that require parliament to skip three sitting days from the date of the committee report being tabled in parliament be suspended so that the debate starts there and then.
  • THAT without the motion to suspend the rule being seconded by any member, the speaker opened the matter for debate and several ruling party members argued in support of its while opposition members opposed it.
  • THAT the speaker, again without the motion being seconded, put the question whether the rule requiring the skipping of three sittings from the date of tabling of the committee report be suspended.
  • THAT the voting was by noise where ruling party members made more noise and the speaker ruled that the motion had passed and the debate was to start there and then.
  • THAT she said that she would give members three minutes each to present his/her voters’ views.
  1. THAT one opposition member raised on the point of procedure that there would be no way they could start the debate yet the rule she had just suspended is the same rule authorizing debate, the speaker overruled him.
  1. THAT another opposition member raised again on the point of procedure and reminded that procedure that although the rules require every motion to be seconded, the motion she had just allowed was not seconded by any member.
  1. THAT the speaker, in an angry mode ordered the legislature to sit down and ordered the debate to begin.
  1. THAT the debate started there and then and members debated until the house was closed for business that day and the next day.
  1. THAT on Wednesday 20th December 2017, the debate went on from morning to the afternoon when the speaker adjourned the house up to 2.00pm.
  2. THAT after 2.00pm, the speaker returned to the house and announced that she had closed the debate and voting was to start and directed the clerk to take the members through the voting procedure.
  1. THAT one opposition member rose and stated that not all members had debated yet it was only fair that since members had been sent out to consult with their electorates, each member would give the views of his/her voters. This was echoed by the leader of the Opposition.
  1. THAT the speaker overruled the member and The Leader of The Opposition and restated that the voting was to go on at that time and she had closed the debate.
  1. THAT another opposition member rose and raised a point that the rules require that before voting starts, all the doors of the chambers must be closed but the speaker just ignored that and re-directed the speaker to read the names for people to vote on the 2nd reading.
  1. THAT voting went on with members speaking in the microphone a yes, for those in support of the second reading and no for those in opposition of the second reading of the bill.
  2. THAT at the end of the voting at around 6pm, those in support were 317 and those against were 97 and speaker announced that the bill had passed to be considered by the Committee of the whole house.
  1. THAT there and then, the speaker constituted parliament into the committee of the whole house to debate each and every close of the bill in that same sitting.
  1. THAT at around 9pm, the speaker reconvened the entire house and Hon. Raphael Magyezi reported that The Committee of the entire House had considered the Bill, passed it in its entirety with amendments and also introduced and passed new clauses amending articles 77, 181, 29, 291, 105, and 260 of The Constitution upon which he moved a motion to adopt the committee of the full house report.
  1. THAT the question was put and agreed to and the speaker, there and then put a question whether the bill should go for the third reading and she ordered the voting to start there and then.
  1. THAT voting started and went on up to after 11.00pm with those in support being 315 and those against being 62 and the speaker announced that the bill had passed.
  2. THAT in a jovial mode, the speaker told members that parliament will have a party the next day and encouraged them to attend and advised them to dress causally-smart. A copy of The Certified Record of Proceedings of Parliament for 18th -20th December  2017 is hereto attached and marked ‘D’
  1.  THAT on 22nd December 2017, the day I filed my Constitutional Petition No. 49 of 2017, the Speaker of Parliament prepared and signed a purported Certificate of Compliance which contained only 4 amendments as opposed to the 10 amendments made by Parliament. A copy of the Certified purported Certificate of Compliance by The Speaker is hereto attached and marked ‘E’
  1. THAT on 27th December 2017, the President of the Republic of Uganda on the strengths of The purported Speaker’s Certificate and on the purported certification by the Clerk to Parliament purported to assent to the bill. A copy of part of The Assented to bill to which the Clerk’s Certification is attached  is hereto attached and marked ‘F’
  1. THAT at conferencing of my petition in the Constitutional court, the Deputy Chief Justice announced a panel of Justices to hear and determine the petition.
  2. THAT by my letter dated 28th March 2018 to Hon. Lady Justice Elizabeth Musoke copied to the Deputy Chief Justice and others, I objected to the lady justice and in another latter dated 5th April 2018, I objected to Mr. Justice Cheborion Barishaki. copies of the two letters are hereto attached and marked ‘G’
  1. THAT despite receiving the letters, neither the individual justices nor the head of court responded to them and no arrangements were made to have these matters properly addressed before the hearing and the two justices participated in the hearing.
  1. THAT at the hearing of the petition, the Constitutional Court chased and/or evicted me from the front court seats to the back and later to the dock on account of my being self-represented.
  1. THAT the Constitutional court judgment was delivered on 26th July 2018 partially allowing my petition, with Musoke and Barishaki, JCC whom I had entered a note of objection being part of the majority.
  2. THAT being dissatisfied with part of the Judgment, I 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.
  3. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  1. THAT consequently, just like the Constitutional court, the Supreme Court consolidated my appeal with two others after which the following issues were framed:
  2. Whether the learned Justices of the Constitutional Court misdirected themselves on the application of the basic structure doctrine?
  3. 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?
  4. 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.
  5. Whether the learned Justices of The Constitutional Court erred in law when they applied the substantiality test in determining the petition.
  6. 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?
  7. 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?
  8. (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?
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. THAT whenit 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. THAT by my letter dated 28th March 2019, I requested for reasons why the judgment was not delivered within the required sixty (60) days.
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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. Copies of my letters demanding for reasons why the Judgment was not delivered within 60 days, the response from court and my letter to Supreme Court communicating my filing of the application for mandamus are hereto attached and jointly marked ‘H’.
  2. THAT I was present in The Supreme Court of Uganda on 18th April 2019 to hear from court since the judgment notice had indicated the same date at 10:00 am.
  1. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. THAT the confession that he had lost sight was a clear signal that there was no way he 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.
  1. 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.
  1. THAT since 18th April 2019, I have tried, without fail, to access the signed judgments of the respective judgments but with no success.
  2. 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 Uganda in light of what the three gentlemen and a lady, who are not aliens inUganda, had decided, to give a green flag to violence and none-compliance with constitutional imperatives in amending the constitution.
  1. 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. 
  1. 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 Judgmentwhich he even failed to read to the parties and the public.
  1. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. THAT I found out thateven 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. THAT two years afterthe 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.
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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.
  1.  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.
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  1. THAT I know thatthere 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. 
  1. 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.
  1. THAT although at the time of conferencing and hearing of the appeal, I had raised a notice of objection against Buteera, JSC, none of the parties objected to Kisaakye and Mwondha, both substantive Justices of The Supreme Court and they were hence available.
  2. 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 wasnot 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 participationin 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 Judgmentsof 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 courtthat 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 Judgmentsof 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 Judgmentsof 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 thatcontrary 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 as a lawyer, I am aware that the Supreme Court of Uganda 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 pursuant to which I filed Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2019 which the Supreme Court has refused/neglected to fix for hearing. Copies of the application, letters requesting for a hearing date and the response by the Court are hereto attached and jointly marked ‘I’. 
  • THAT I state with confidence, as a lawyer and a civically active Ugandan that the process of conceptualizing, initiation, processing, enactment and purported assent to The Constitution (Amendment) Bill No. 2 of 2017 generally is unconstitutional and contravenes several provisions of the Uganda 1995 Constitution, The Acts of Parliament Act, The Administration of Parliament Act, The Parliament Rules of Procedure, The Judicial Code of Ethics, among other laws specified in my statement of reference.
  • THAT I also state that the said actions and contravene/ undermine the fundamental and operational principles of the community which include good governance including adherence to the principles of democracy, the rule of law, accountability, transparency, social justice, equal opportunities, gender equality, as well as the recognition, promotion and the maintenance  of universally accepted standards of human rights.
  • THAT I affirm, to the best of my knowledge that the several actions, directives and/or decisions of all the three organs of Government and State of The Republic of Uganda; the Parliament, The Executive and The Judiciary of The Republic of Uganda in conceptualizing, processing, pursuing and upholding of The Uganda Constitution (Amendment) Act 2018 are unlawful and/or are an infringement of the provisions of The Treaty for Establishment of The East African Community.
  • 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 further, as a Ugandan, 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 consequent to the above averments, I pray for the several declarations, orders, permanent injunctions, general damages, costs of the reference, as specified in my Statement of Reference.
  • THAT I affirm to this affidavit in support of this Reference challenging the several actions and decisions of the three arms of government and state of The Republic of Uganda, elaborated herein and in Statement of Reference.

VERIFICATION

I, MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUKA, do hereby verify 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 03 day of May 2019.

       BEFORE ME

                                                         ……………………………..

                                               A COMMISIONER FOR OATHS.

Drawn and filed by;                                                                                                       MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUKA

C/o Plot 35, Kampala Road, Post Office Building, 5th Floor, Room 501A, Tel +256    787 263 086/+256 752 570 574, Kampala, Uganda

IN THE EAST AFRICAN COURT OF JUSTICE

 FIRST INSTANCE DIVISION 

AT ARUSHA-TANZANIA

REFERENCE No.……….…OF 2019

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

VERSUS

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

The applicant will adduce evidence and contend that the actions and decisions of the officials of The Government and State of The Republic of Uganda complained against in this Reference are illegal and contravene the fundamental principles of The Treaty for The Establishment of The East African Community.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

  1. All attachments to the affidavit in support of this Reference.
  2. The Constitution and others laws of Uganda made under it.
  3. The Uganda Rules of Procedure of the 10th Parliament.
  4. The official documents of parliament including but not limited to the Hansard and Certificates.
  5. The proceedings, rulings and judgments of The Constitutional Court and Supreme Court of Uganda.
  6. Any other with leave of court.

LIST OF AUTHORITIES

  1. The Treaty for Establishment of The East African Community.
  2. The 1995 Uganda Constitution.
  3. Uganda Statute law.
  4. The Rules of Procedure of The 10th parliament.
  5.  Case law.
  6. Any other with leave of court.

Dated and Signed at Kampala this 03d day of 05 2019 by:

…………………………

MALE H. MABIRIZI K.KIWANUKA                                                                                               APPLICANT.

Drawn and filed by;                                                                                                                        MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUKA

C/o Plot 35, Kampala Road, Post Office Building, 5th Floor, Room 501A,                                                  Tel +256 787 263 086/+256 752 570 574, Kampala, Uganda.

IN THE EAST AFRICAN COURT OF JUSTICE

 FIRST INSTANCE DIVISION 

AT ARUSHA-TANZANIA

REFERENCE No.……….…OF 2019

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

VERSUS

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA:::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT

NOTIFICATION OF REFERENCE

To: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

    OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA,

    Kampala, Uganda.

You are hereby notified that the above named Applicant has instituted a reference against you, copy of which is annexed hereto.

You are hereby required to file a response or written statement of defence within 45 days from the day of the service hereof.

In default whereof the reference will be heard and determined in your absence. 

Given under my hand and seal of the Court, this ……day of ……….2019   

…………………………

REGISTRAR

THE EAST AFRICAN COURT OF JUSTICE.

Comments

NEWS

I Have Been Forging Documents Since My Childhood: Former URA Staff Boasts Before Bamugemereire

Published

on

Semanda before the land probe

Former Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) staff Steven Semanda boasted before Justice Catherine Bamugemereire’s land probe that he has been a forgery expert since his childhood.

Semanda testified that he has on several occasions been charged in different courts and recorded a number of police statements on uttering forged documents.

“Yes, it’s true I have been making a lot of forgeries but much of the time it’s my friends who ask me to forge documents for them. My Lord, I also don’t want be named to be in such things,” Semanda said. He told the commission that the evil of uttering forged documents started when he was still a young man.

“It was foolish but I forged my father’s signature and withdrew his money from his bank account,” Semanda added. Justice Bamugemereire the chairperson of the commission asked him whether he was the one behind the forging of documents indicating that the 28 acres of land in Kitezi were owned by his brother Charles Mulinde.

Bamugemereire cited the testimony of Mulinde who told the commission that he never owned the contested land but one day, he received a phone call from Semanda asking him to meet and sign certain documents for him. Mulinde said that it was his other brother Apollo Lumu who stopped him from signing the said documents because he (Semanda) was targeting their father’s estate.  Mulinde further told the commission that Semanda was fired from URA after forging documents and embezzling a lot of money.

Semanda admitted that he forged the said documents but clarified that he did it under pressure from his brother Lumu who wanted to own their father’s land saying their elder brothers were not serious.  He denied proceeding with the process because his elder brother Dr. Fred Kambugu warned him to stop forging documents with the aim of stealing their family’s land.

Dr. Kambugu, the Kampala skin clinic boss ran to the commission claiming that there are people who fraudulently grabbed their father’s estate including their family members.

The commission is still investigating the matter.

By Sengooba Alirabaki

Comments

Continue Reading

NATIONAL

Mafias Chased Us From Government, They Are Now Killing Themselves With Their Guns Over Money And Power – Mirundi…

Published

on

President Museveni’s former press secretary Joseph Tamale Mirundi has revealed that there are many signs showing that the mafias in president Museveni’s government are fighting each other over money and power.

“You know we intellectuals have information that mafias are fighting each other that is why dead bodies are now being thrown on the streets. Mafias here are very deadly and I’m telling you Uganda will end up like Somalia, they are going to kill themselves,” Mirundi, who was hosted on Pearl FM radio on Saturday said.

He noted that the mafias in Museveni’s government first fought and chased all the people who were loyal to Museveni under the guise of preventing them from stealing tax payers money. Mirundi said that by the time Museveni supporters like him, Ministry of Education Permanent Secretary Asuman Lukwago were kicked out, the mafias were working together.

Mirundi however said that their tormenters have now developed misunderstanding over money and power that’s why they are fighting each other.

The self-claimed media consultant and private investigator further revealed that the mafias in government have guns which they are using now to kill themselves, he gave an example of the gruesome murder of Joshua Nteyireho Ruhegyera and Mary Tumukunde who were gunned down on Entebbe express highway. Mirundi rubbished the arrests made by Uganda police and other security agencies over the current string of murders and kidnaps adding that the arrested suspects never committed these crimes.

By Jamil Lutakome

Comments

Continue Reading

NATIONAL

I WANT HER TO VOMIT MY LAND: Mulago Hospital Doctor Drags Former Minister Maria Kiwanuka To Land Probe For Grabbing Her 9 Acres Of Land In Munyonyo…

Published

on

L-R: Nabukeera and former minister Maria Kiwanuka

The troubles befalling former finance minister who is also the general manager of Radio one, Akaboozi kubiiri Maria Rhoda Nabasirye Kiwanuka keep pilling each day.

A senior Mulago hospital doctor has now dragged her to the commission of inquiry into land matters for grabbing their 9 acres of land in Munyonyo Kampala.  Rhone Irene Lubega Nabukeera testified before the commission of inquiry into land matters that her father the late Solomon Lubega Byatike Matovu (60) bought 9 acres of land on Kyadondo Block 257 plot 5 from prince Alfred Kigaala, a son to fallen Buganda King, Sir Daudi Chwa in 1964.

“According to the agreement we found at the department of mapping and surveying in Entebbe, our father fully paid the money for the land and lodged a caveat on it to stop unscrupulous people from selling it again, unfortunately, he died before transferring the land into his names,” Nabukeera said.

She told the commission that as a family, they knew that their father left land in Munyonyo but they did not have the documentations until 2006 when a one Yusuf Mukasa, a friend to their late father brought to them the documents.

She said that they went to the registrar of land titles in the Ministry of Lands Housing and Urban Development to find out the status of their late father’s land. She narrated that at the ministry of lands, they were told that the ministry cannot locate their land because it was still in folios even though it was still caveated. They further advised them to consult Entebbe department of mapping and surveying.

She testified that at Entebbe, they carried out an investigation and found out that their land was subdivided was currently on Kyadondo Block 257 plot 5 and 433. Their findings further revealed that the land was registered in the names of Ambrose Wafumba in 1975.

Nabukeera with her lawyer before the commission

They further discovered that the land was transferred from Wafumba and registered in Alima investments Uganda limited which is owned by Maria Nabasirye Kiwana  Kiwanuka, Margate Kiwana, Nakato Mbekeka, Margate Ndibalekera and Janet Nkabidwa, the shareholders of Alima investments. She revealed that efforts to speak to the owners of Alima investments limited were futile and they decided to use legal means. However, every lawyer they approach for assistance abandoned them. Nabukeera revealed that they discovered that there was an invisible hand influencing lawyers to abandon them.

However, Nabukeera found a tough time when commissioner Dr. Rose Nakayi, a Makerere University law don tasked her to present evidence that the land in question was sold to her father.

Nakayi, basing on the documents before the commission told Nabukeera that the land was owned by King Daudi Chwa on behalf of Buganda so his son Kigaala had no powers to sell it.

In response, Nabukeera insisted that the land was given to Kigaala by Chwa so he owned the land in his personal capacity.  She further testified that even her late mother Dorothy Nasolo benefitted from that land as a daughter to king Chwa.

Former Buganda minister Robert Sebunya supported Nabukeera that the said land was owned by King Chwa in his personal capacity not a king. 

Justice Catherine Bamugemereire the chairperson of the commission promised Nabukeera that very soon, Maria Kiwanuka and others will be summoned to explain how they got the contested land.

Maria Nabasirye Kiwanuka is still battling with her husband’s son Sebuliba Kiwanuka who dragged her to the high court civil division accusing her of fraudulently changing the administration of their father’s companies including Oscar industries limited. Sebuliba asked High Court judge Musa Sekana to issue an order to have his father Mohan Kiwanuka’s mental status examined claiming that her step mother Nabasirye is using him to sign strange documents giving her powers to administer his properties.

By Jamil Lutakome

Comments

Continue Reading

like us

TRENDING

error: Content is protected !!