After six days of non-stop hearing of the election petition filed by presidential candidate Amama Mbabazi, the nine justices of the Supreme Court, start a nine-day intense phase as they write a defining judgment.
The justices will rummage through the sea of documents presented by lawyers of the petitioner and the three respondents Yoweri Museveni, the Electoral Commission and the Attorney General.
And Chief Justice Bart Katureebe laid bare the task ahead while concluding the hearing. “It has been a very hard week, but it will be harder for us the next 10 days,” the Chief Justice said last Saturday.
The finding will form the basis of their awaited March 31 decision, whether to annul or uphold President Museveni’s victory as announced by the Electoral Commission on February 20. This will extend the reign of 71-year-old Museveni to 35-years.
As commanded by the Constitution, the highest court in the land has been inquiring into what exactly happened during the February 18, general election.
The presidential petition No. 1 of 2016, was filed before the court registry on March 1, by Mr Mbabazi, being dissatisfied with the results.
The EC declared Mr Museveni as the winner of the 2016 presidential elections with 5,617,503 votes, a percentage of 60.7. Runners up, Kizza Besigye, a four-time presidential contender and the FDC candidate garnered 3,270,290 votes, representing 35.37 per cent of the total votes cast. Independent candidate Mbabazi polled 132, 574 votes representing 1.43 per cent.
The former premier is seeking to annul President Museveni’s victory, citing among other things non-compliance to the law on the part of the EC and bribery allegations by Mr Museveni.
A retired Supreme Court judge, who participated in previous hearings of the presidential election petitions but preferred to speak on condition of anonymity, explained that the practice is that in these remaining days, all the judges will seat at a round table and brainstorm.
The retired judge said individual justices discuss their views about the case and what decisions they have on particular points of contestation as presented by the petitioner’s lawyers and rebutted by the respondents legal team.
In the end, the side that has the majority judges forms the decision of the court, the reason why he number of justices on the panel had to be odd.
“If all the judges agree on one decision, then one judge will volunteer to write the lead judgment, that will first be read
through by the rest to correct any mistakes. Others write briefs in support. The remaining justices will sign it, in endorsement,” he explained. “In case there are justices with varying views and decisions, they are also allowed to write their dissenting judgment.”
The retired judge added that given the time constraint in which the presidential election petition is supposed to be disposed of (mandatory 30 days), the judges might have to just come up with summary judgment that they will deliver on Thursday next week and reserve their reasoning to be delivered in months to come.
Article 104 (1) of the Constitution gives any aggrieved presidential candidate a lee-way to petition the Supreme Court to challenge the results, which law provision Mr Mbabazi invoked.
“Subject to the provisions of this article, any aggrieved candidate may petition the Supreme Court for an order that a candidate declared by the Electoral Commission elected as president was not validly elected,” reads the provision.
The same Constitution demands that the Supreme Court shall expeditiously inquire into the petition and declare its findings not later than 30 days from the date the petition was filed.
Leave a Reply