The Supreme court has dismissed an application seeking to summon the speaker of parliament Rebecca Kadaga to answer for her role in amending the constitution to lift the presidential age limits.
Last month, city lawyer Male Mabirizi filed an application stating that before the court proceeds to listen to the consolidated age limit petitions, Kadaga should be cross-examined over her role in the passing of the Constitutional Amendment Act 2017 which lifted the presidential age limits.
His application was challenged by the solicitor general Francis Atooke through an affidavit of Jane Kibirige, the clerk to parliament. Atooke, said that the speaker was immune to court proceedings and shouldn't be summoned.
On Friday, seven Supreme court justices led by the chief justice Bart Katureebe dismissed Mabirizi's application. They cited that he filed a lengthy and argumentative affidavit of 264 paragraphs which was unnecessary.
Other justices are; Jotham Tumwesigye, Paul Mugamba, Opio Aweri, Eldard Mwangutsya, Stella Arach Amoko and Lillian Tibatemwa. In the unanimous ruling, the justices stated that while the length of the affidavit was not an issue, the contents were non-compliant with the civil rules of procedure.
"An affidavit as we understand it, is meant to adduce evidence, and not to argue the application. We find that the affidavits of the applicant fall short of meeting this standard", said Mwangutsya as he read the ruling on behalf of the other justices who were also present.
The justices said that the reasons presented by Mabirizi to summon the speaker were the very reasons he presented in the grounds of appeal which would be pre-empting the main application which is yet to be determined.
This, according to the justices, implies an abuse of court process since the parties in the age limit petition have already made their submissions on the same grounds which the Supreme court should also pronounce itself on. The application was dismissed without any orders on the costs.
The Supreme court also said that while the affidavit presented by solicitor general on December 7, 2018 was defective, there was nothing wrong since he replaced the same in an affidavit dated December 11, 2018.
Mabirizi said the application was a mock test for the Supreme court, and just like students, the judges may have failed the mock exams but can eventually pass the final exam. Or they can fail both the mock exam and the final exam as well.
"Because it was the speaker involved, they even didn’t want the application be heard or to be argued. They are saying my affidavit was argumentative because it had 200 paragraphs. So if that’s the point, now when I bring an affidavit of 15 pages what will they say?" said Mabirizi.