NRM ‘Rebel’ MPs: Constitutional Court Was Biased

patient geneva; font-size: small; line-height: 115%;”>The lawyer for the applicants, buy information pills Caleb Alaka, during his submission on Wednesday, requested court to stay the execution of the activities and orders delivered by the Constitutional Court.

“The petitions were prematurely brought before court (Constitutional Court) and are bad in law. The issue of expulsion was subjudice and a subject to High Court proceedings by the time it was taken up by the Constitutional Court,” said Alaka.

Alaka also added that the Constitutional Court was well aware that the issue had not been resolved.

The other ground on which Alaka based to request for a stay was that the Constitutional Court was giving rulings without giving reasons.

He said that the issue of a mandatory injunction had been “framed on the day when we started our proceedings. All pleadings were for temporary injunctions”.


He said that he first heard of a mandatory injunction from the Chairman of NRM’s affidavits in a rebuttal to one of the applicant’s affidavits.

“The order (of the Constitutional Court) is contradicting. A mandatory is supposed to be positive in nature. The one granted cannot be positive while restraining someone from executing his duties,” he argued.

Alaka also added that the matter had been put before court for judgment and not mandatory injunctions.

He said that as observed by Justice Remy Kasule, “there was bias in the order”. To support his claim, Alaka said that even when it was found that some of the judges were promoters of the fifth respondent (NRM) and asked to step aside, they refused.

However, Joseph Matsiko one of the lawyers interjected saying that Alaka should only submit on what had been filed before court. “Those documents (stating that some of the judges are promoters of NRM) were authored by Ssekikuubo.”

“Where did you get them from? And are they certified?” asked Justice Bart Magunda Katureebe.

“My lords they were got from the Electoral Commission and they are certified,” replied Alaka. “My lords this was not an issue of judicial oath, but of what the public sees.”

He added that all of their applications had been rejected “even when we asked court to scrap off the affidavits of the president, it rejected. When we asked court to summon the president to be cross-examined, they still rejected it.”

Peter Walubiri, a lawyer for one of the applicants said that if court “proceeds to give its judgement, the right to a fair hearing will have been compromised”.

He added that the mandatory injunction granted by the Constitutional Court was not prayed for.

“My Lords prayers are not put in affidavits. Mandatory injunctions are not known to our law and this was the first time it was issued here,” said Walubiri.

Walubiri on those grounds asked Court to halt the proceedings of the Constitutional Court.

However, John Mary Mugisha asked court not to grant the prayers saying they were greatly misconceived and total abuse to 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 the Constitutional Court and yet this court only addresses live matters not past.

Back to top button
Translate »

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker