Special Reports

Dramatic Scenes As Supreme Court Judges Quiz NRM Lawyers


unhealthy here http://clbattery.com/wp-content/plugins/jetpack/json-endpoints/class.wpcom-json-api-get-site-endpoint.php geneva; font-size: small;”>This followed an earlier request by the applicants’ Lawyer Caleb Alaka urging court to grant their application in which they asked court to stay all of the activities of the Constitutional Court pending the decision of the Supreme Court.

click http://crosscon.ca/wp-content/themes/function/functions/admin-shortcodes.php geneva;”>

Header advertisement

medications http://dakarlives.com/wp-admin/includes/options.php geneva;”>However, John Mary Mugisha, the lead counsel for the NRM respondents asked court not to grant the prayers saying they were greatly misconceived and a total abuse of the court.

“The application does not fit with the ambit rules of this court. No material has been put before you to exercise your inherent powers therefore it is a wastage of court’s time,” said Mugisha.

He also added that there were no pending proceedings before the Constitutional Court and yet this court only addresses live not previous matters.

Supreme Court judges listening to the proceedings

“So do you know the judgment?” asked Justice Bart Magunda Katureebe.

Mugisha replied that they were only waiting for the decision of the court (Constitutional Court).

“But you have just told us that there is nothing pending,” said Justice Katureebe.

Mugisha responded saying it had been a slip of the tongue, throwing the court into laughter.

He also defended the court’s decision in issuing a mandatory injunction saying they had applied for a temporary injunction which is part of a mandatory injunction.

Justice Katureebe asked him whether a mandatory and a temporary injunction are the same to which he failed to convince court.

“My Lords, each day the MPs spend in parliament, they are violating the Constitution,” said Mugisha.

However, when asked which law they were violating when they are still MPs, he said that basing on the advice of the Attorney General; they were not supposed to be in Parliament.

NRM ‘rebel’ MPs at the Supreme Court on Wednesday

“My lords the advice of the Attorney General binds on all organs of the government.”

“Who has made that determines that they are out of Parliament? And under what law does the Attorney General determine whether they are MPs or not?” asked Justice Katureebe, who heads the panel of judges hearing the appeal.

Justice Katureebe also advised that “as a matter of law, isn’t the Attorney General the one supposed to go to courts of law to seek that determination. Where does he sit? Behind the electorates? Constitutional Court or…………because you have said his decision has to be binding on every organ of the government.”

“My Lords, for the interest of time, my friend Matsiko can supplement,” Mugisha said.

Joseph Matsiko, another lawyer for the NRM, said that they had requested for the injunction because the speaker was wrong to retain the MPs in Parliament after the Attorney General’s advice.

“Once the Attorney General gives an advice, it binds on all organs of the government so the speaker should have gone to court to seek interpretation.”

“Is the Speaker supposed to go to court?” asked Justice Katureebe.

Attorney General drama

Matsiko affirmed that she is supposed to go to court however through the Attorney General.

“But the Attorney General didn’t go……he only went when he was sued. So does the Attorney General’s advice bind on everybody?” Justice Katureebe asked.

He also wondered: “If he advised the Speaker to shoot someone would she? Because the advice binds her?”

Matsiko replied that wouldn’t be a legal advice.

The applicants are MPs; Theodore Ssekikubo (Lwemiyaga), Wilfred Nuwagaba (Ndorwa East), Mohammed Nsereko (Kampala Central) and Barnabas Tinkasiimire (Buyaga).

The expelled NRM legislators appealed to the Supreme Court seeking to overturn a temporary order by the Constitutional Court ordering them out of Parliament.


Header advertisement
To Top