Log in

Legal committee stuck in Catch-22 situation on the lifting of age limit

As debate on the contentious age limit bill continues to draw attention, parliament’s legal and parliamentary affairs committee is baffled by the nonappearance of key stakeholders, writes OLIVE EYOTARU.

The legal and parliamentary affairs committee in parliament has until November 20 to hear submissions on the controversial age limit bill but with just seven days to go, the situation is mired because several witnesses have declined to appear.

The committee chaired by West Budama South MP Jacob Oboth-Oboth started work on October 31, by meeting Raphael Magyezi (Igara West), the drafter of the bill, which seeks to remove presidential age limits from the Constitution.

Legal and Parliamentery Affairs committee head Jacob Oboth-Oboth (L)

By the end of last weekend, only 13 out of the 31 individuals and groups had appeared before the committee to give their views on the bill which has generated widespread debate.

Last week, Prime Minister Dr Ruhakana Rugunda disputed the insinuation of Richard Todwong, the NRM deputy secretary general, that Article 102 (b), which is the major pointer in the bill, was sneaked into the Constitution. Other people who appeared included Prof Tarsis Kabwegyere, the former Disaster Preparedness and Refugees minister, Ndebesa Mwambutsya and Leader of Opposition Winnie Kiiza.

Absent, though, were the Makerere University law school dons, who last month stated that they would not appear before the committee on grounds that the amendment bill was illegal.

On November 8, former premier Apolo Nsibambi and Makerere University lecturers Dr Simba Ssali Kayunga and Dr Yasiin Olum also didn’t show up. In a move that took the committee by surprise, NRM Electoral Commission chairman, Dr Tanga Odoi, and Uganda Management Institute lecturer Dr Gerald Karyeija sent apologies requesting for another meeting day.

On November 9, the Inter-Religious Council of Uganda (IRCU), Uganda Local Government Association (ULGA), Uganda National NGO Forum and Eastern Africa Center for Constitutional Development were scheduled to appear but none showed up.

When contacted, Rose Gertrude Gamwera, the ULGA secretary general, told The Observer they asked to re-schedule their meeting to a later date. She explained that the association is still monitoring the decisions of all district councils before coming up with a solid position.

Martin Ojara Mapenduzi, the ULGA vice president (North), confirmed that a five-member committee resolved to conduct more consultation with the local governments. This will give the district councils time to table their resolutions before the association makes a more holistic presentation before the committee.

“What we will present before the committee should be voice of the local governments. We need to get all their views and some local governments have already passed resolutions and communicated them. We require a minimum of 78 districts, that is, two thirds, to make that decision,” Mapenduzi said in a phone interview.

IRCU, in a letter dated October 27 and signed by its secretary general, Joshua Kitakule, also declined the invitation.

“I wish to report that the Council of Presidents formally issued a press statement...this communication is, therefore, to regret the invitation. Please accept our apologies”, Kitakule said.

The Uganda Law Society (ULS) has also followed suit. During an Extraordinary General Meeting held on November 9, members resolved that the society does not appear before the committee.

According to Francis Gimara, ULS president, the lawyers have resolved to engage in litigation to challenge the legality of the process. Gimara said this will be pursued once parliament passes the law.

“This decision will be implemented when the bill is passed. You cannot legally challenge it now because it would be premature. Normally, you go to court after the bill has been passed as law,” he said in a brief interview on Saturday.


Meanwhile, committee chair- man Oboth-Oboth was unavailable for comment. He, however, told The Observer in an earlier interview that those who have rejected parliament’s invitations will miss out on an opportunity.

“Their presence or absence will not affect the work of the committee and will produce its report,” he said.

On Tuesday (tomorrow), the committee is expected to meet constitutional lawyers. They include Peter Mulira, Godfrey Lule, Prof Fredrick Ssempebwa and Prof George Kanyeihamba. Benjamin Odoki, the former chief justice, is also scheduled to appear but sources in the committee revealed that he will be a no-show.

Former presidential candidates Amama Mbabazi and Venansius Baryamureeba are also lined up but Dr Kizza Besigye and Abed Bwanika declined to appear. After the completion of Kampala hearings, the committee is expected to move upcountry for regional meetings.



+4 #1 Lakwena 2017-11-13 09:35
Because of one mad man obsessed with power, the whole country is in a state of collective madness.

In other words, why waste all the valuable time and resources to fix what is not broken? What would happen if Article 102 (b) is not amended, will Mr. M7 drop dead?

Fine, if so, for the sake of the country, let it be. After all how many Ugandan have died because of him.

Besides, everyday of his life he only causes more harm than good. E.g. as doctors are on strike and Ugandans are suffering in thousands and dying in hundreds, in squalid hospitals; Mr. M7's family members live in obscene comfort and health.

As justice is delayed and denied because Prosecutors are on strike, hundreds and thousands of Ugandans are suffering in squalid prison condition; All these is because of one man, Mr. M7.

Report to administrator
+1 #2 nkuutu kibedi 2017-11-13 14:38
The turn-up to this committee should be used as a yardstick to the validity of what is being discussed.

The Age Limit Discussion is so lame that even the most out spoken have REFUSED to embarrass themselves by attending the committee.

When Katuntu sermons people to appear before his committee they actual do appear. Why?

Because of the validity of what the committee stands for. For Oboth-Oboth, this committee is just a sham, and people of integrity are cowing from it.

A sure sign that things are not good. It is like organizing a wedding, and people don't turn up: you know there is something extremely WRONG with the function.
Report to administrator

Comments are now closed for this entry