LAWYER MALE MABIRIZI FILES AGE LIMIT APPEAL
One of the dissatisfied petitioners over the Constitutional Court's judgment last month in the age limit case Male Mabirizi, has filed his appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Constitutional Court sitting in Mbale last month upheld the amendment of article 102(b) of the constitution, to lift the minimum and maximum age limit for anyone contesting for the Presidency.
Mabirizi who filed a notice of appeal just a day after the 26th July Constitutional Court ruling, this morning filled a 30,692 page record, which he delivered on a pick-up truck at the Supreme Court, and it has been received by Deputy Registrar Godfrey Angualia Opefeni.
Mabirizi lists 84 grounds on which he asks the Supreme court to over turn the 4 to 1 majority ruling of the constitutional court.
Mabirizi says the four justices failed to address themselves on the provisions of the Constitution, that require the Electoral commission to hold a referendum, before carrying out any constitutional amendment.
In their ruling, four of the five justices of the Constitutional Court that sat in Mbale, ruled that it was not mandatory to hold a referendum in order to amend article 102b of the constitution lifting the age limit for anyone contesting for President, since MPs who amended the Constitution are empowered by the people to make laws on their behalf.
Mabirizi also contends that the four justices erred in law, when they held that the public was fully consulted by their representatives, before amending the Constitution to remove the Presidential age - limit.
Mabirizi further faults the Constitutional court for refusing to award him the 20 million shillings as costs saying he never engaged a professional lawyer to argue his petition, yet he incurred expenses like other petitioners.
Four of the five Justices of the Constitutional Court, including Alphonse Owiny Dollo, Cheborion Barishaki, Elizabeth Musoke and Remmy Kasule, upheld the amendment of the constitution to lift the presidential age limit, saying it was done in accordance with the constitution.
The judges however unanimously agreed with the petitioners that the extension of the term of office for Members of Parliament from five to seven years was unconstitutional.
The Justices also anulled the reinstatement of Presidential term limits.