The hearing of the age limit appeal will happen in 2019, the Supreme Court announced on Wednesday, five months after the Constitutional Court upheld age limit removal.

The appeal is challenging a July 2018 Constitutional Court ruling that declared age limit removal constructional.

The attorney general, and appellants, including the Uganda Law Society, opposition MPs, including Gerald Karuhanga, Jonathan Odur, Mubarak Munyagwa, Semujju Nganda and Winnie Kiiza; and lawyer Hassan Male Mabirizi, have agreed on eight issues to be determined.

“We all agreed on eight issues that are to be determined by this court and we shall file written submissions,” Attorney General William Byaruhanga told court.

The deadline for both parties to file and serve each other with written submissions is December 31, 2018.

“Any submissions that do not comply with the directives given today should be rejected and should not be brought in court,” Chief Justice Bart Katureebe said.

Summary of Issue to be determined

Whether the majority justices of the Constitutional Court misdirected themselves on the application of basic structure doctrine.

Whether the learned majority justices of the Constitutional Court erred in law and in fact in holding that the entire process of conceptualising, consulting, debating and enactment of Constitution (Amendment) Act 2018 did not in any respect contravene nor was it inconsistent with the 1995 Constitution.

Whether the Constitutional Court majority justices erred in law and fact when they held that the violence/scuffle inside and outside Parliament during the enactment of Constitution (Amendment) Act 2018 did not in any respect contravene nor was it inconsistent with the Constitution.

Whether the learned majority justices of the Constitutional Court erred when they applied the substantiality test in determining the petition.

Whether the learned majority justices of the Constitutional Court misdirected themselves in holding that the Constitution (Amendment) Act 2018 on the removal of the age limit for the President and Local Council V offices was not inconsistent with the Constitution.

Whether the learned justices of the Constitutional Court erred in law and fact in holding that the President elected in 2016 is not liable to vacate office on attaining the age of 75.

(a) Whether the learned justices of the Constitutional Court Committed the alleged procedural irregularities.

(b) If so, what is the effect on the decision of the court?

What are the remedies available to the appellants?