Court

PETITION: Basalirwa Defends Constitutionality of Amendment

The Supreme Court has began the pre-trial of the petition in which Amama Mbabazi is challenging the results of the February 18 Presidential elections.

However the respondents ; Museveni, store see http://changescale.org/wp-includes/cache.php Attorney General and Electoral commission have contested the amendment filed by Mbabazi’s lawyers claiming that it is unconstitutional and didn’t meet the requirements.

In all their submissions, visit this site cheap the respondents stipulated that there were no special circumstances under which the amendment should be filed and that it was a complete overhaul of the original petition.

Chief Justice Bart Katureebe who leads the 9 judges and the lead counsel Mwesigwa Rukutana both questioned the legality of the amendment with the latter asking that it’s disallowed.

“While the petitioner deserves substantive justice from the court, it should not over ride the law,” stated his Lordship Katurebe.

Speaking to journalists after the pre-trial hearing was adjourned; Asumani Basalirwa who represents Amama Mbabazi said that their amendment was constitutional.

“When we filed the petition, Museveni and his team responded saying it lacked sufficient evidence. The amendments we made in our petition serve to clarify and give more specifications.”

He further stated; “We ask that a vote recount be done in 45 districts where in some areas the voter turn up exceeded the number of registered voters. The amendment also sheds more light on bribery
for example in Mayuge where Museveni promised the locals 300,000 acres of forest land.”

Basalirwa argues that a petition of this nature is different from the ordinary petitions and involves several complexities which should be handled in a unique manner.

“This isn’t a new petition and we haven’t violated any law whatsoever.
We filed it within the 10 days timeline as required. Our side cited regulations in the Presidential Elections Act that allow us to apply for an amendment but the respondents didn’t cite any regulations that prohibit us,” he asserted.

The court is set to pronounce itself on the issue of amendment at 2:30pm on Monday afternoon.

 


Header advertisement
Comments

Header advertisement
To Top