Uganda’s Chief Justice, Bart Katureebe has apologized for the delayed judgment of the consolidated age limit appeals.
Katureebe issued the apology this morning ahead of the Supreme Court Judgment the appeals, which are challenging the scrapping of the constitutional presidential age limit.
In his opening remarks, Justice Katureebe attributed the delayed judgment to numerous issues including health problems. Justice Katureebe explained that he was unwell and underwent surgery, adding that he will be flying out of the country the next week to undergo eye surgery.
“Judges are also humans and they fall sick. I was a victim for about five weeks and I have undergone surgery. This partly delayed us,” he said.
While officiating at the launch of the Video conferencing system for Luzira Prison inmates at Buganda Road Court last week, Katureebe delegated a junior officer to read his speech, saying he was unable to do it despite his presence.
He also noted that the petitioners filed voluminous applications, which required thorough reading yet they were operating within limited time. The judgment comes a month after the two months deadline.
Justice Bart Katureebe is leading a panel comprising of justices Stella Arach Amoko, Eldad Mwangusya, Lillian Tibatemwa, Jotham Tumwesigye, Rubby Opio Aweri and Paul Mugamba to deliver judgment.
The court is expected to deliver judgment on eight key issues including among others. Whether the learned Justices of the Constitutional Court misdirected themselves on the application of the basic structure doctrine.
Whether majority of the learned 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 didn’t in any respect contravene nor was it inconsistent with the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda and The Rules of Procedure of Parliament
Whether the learned Justices of the Constitutional Court erred in law and fact when they held that the violence/scuffle inside and outside Parliament during the enactment of the Constitution (Amendment) Act 2018 did not in any respect contravene the previous said laws.
Whether the learned Justices of the Constitutional Court erred in law when they applied the substantiality test in determining the petition.
Whether the learned Justices of the Constitutional Court directed themselves when they held that the Constitution (Amendment) Act2018 on the removal of the age limit for the President and Local Council Five offices was not inconsistent with the provisions of the 1995 Constitution.
Whether the Constitutional Court erred in law and fact in holding that the president elected in 2016 is not liable to vacate office on attaining the age of 75 years.
The court is also expected to address the available remedies to the parties.