{UAH} Allan/Edmund/Gwokto/Gook/Pojim/WBK: As I was saying yesterday! NEWSPROF KANYEIHAMBA: KYAGULANYI WAS GOOD PETITIONER WHO WAS LET DOWN BY HIS OWN LAWYERS
Author: Admin |
2:34 AM |
No comments |
NEWS
PROF KANYEIHAMBA: KYAGULANYI WAS GOOD PETITIONER WHO WAS LET DOWN BY HIS OWN LAWYERS
by
Mulengera
By Mulengera Reporters
Rtd Supreme Court Judge GW Kanyeihamba, who is also a diehard supporter of Robert Kyagulanyi, has this Monday evening vigorously protested the NUP Principal's decision to withdraw his election petition challenging the reelection of Gen YKT Museveni as the President of Uganda. Speaking in a media interview at his Buziga residence moments after the Kamwokya news conference where Kyagulanyi proclaimed his decision while contemptuously christening CJ Alfonse Owinyi Dollo the "Chief Injustice," Kanyeihamba said the bias which NUP fanatics have been alleging against Dollo and other panel members can only be established after they have delivered their judgment. And that it's possible, majority judges can at the beginning of the petition hold a certain view but which can change as the inquiry into the petitioner's grounds and evidence gets underway.
Kanyeihamba says the fact that one of the 9 judges ruled in favor of Kyagulanyi regarding his last week application to be allowed to file more affidavits is indicative not all of them were against him. Mulengera Newsunderstands that that one judge was none other than Paul Mugamba who equally ruled against Gen Museveni's interests even during the Togikwatako decision when the same was brought before the Supreme Court on appeal.
Kanyeihamba says this has ever happened twice: when he and others sat to consider the PK Semogerere appeal petition challenging the constitutionality of the referendum on parties and in 2006 when he and others determined Kizza Besigye's petition. That in his own case, he changed his view and ruled in favor of Besigye, the petitioner, after one fellow judge implored him to do so while focusing him on certain affidavits which he had overlooked as he prepared his judgment.
He also says one time Justice Arthur Oder (RIP) persuaded the entire bench of 7 Supreme Court justices to rule in favor of a man who had appealed against his criminal conviction and sentence from the lower courts. Renowned for taking no prisoners, Kanyeihamba says he feels betrayed that Kyagulanyi personally drove to his Buziga residence in the company of one of his aides and lawyers to seek his views only to overlook all the options he articulated to him.
"It's very possible that with time, that one judge [Paul Mugamba] who ruled in favor of Kyagulanyi out of the 9 would gradually have persuaded others to find in favor of the petitioner if this petition had been allowed to be heard to completion," Kanyeihamba asserted during the media interview. This [driving to Buziga] was after the NUP Petitioner faced several setbacks with his two applications; one seeking to amend the petition grounds and another seeking to file more affidavit evidence outside the originally allocated time.
Kanyeihamba says he advised Kyagulanyi on many things including the need to bring him on board either as lead counsel or as a witness giving expert evidence on the constitutionality of the petition and the like. That Kyagulanyi was very enthusiastic and enchanted about the ideas he was given. Kanyeihamba says Kyagulanyi agreed with him on the need to return with a copy of the petition and members of the legal team so that Kanyeihamba would, upon studying it, offer them some guidance leveraging on his decades of experience as a constitutional law expert. The Rtd Supreme Court judge says to his dismay, Kyagulanyi never came back. Neither did any of the lawyers ever show up at his house nor reach out to him on phone. "I learnt from one of the young lawyers that they weren't comfortable with my input. That each one of them said we don't want Kanyeihamba involved anywhere in this petition," said Kanyeihamba who was reluctant to disclose why Medard Segona and the other Kyagulanyi lawyers weren't comfortable having him around.
The Constitutional law professor adds that "I also asked him have you reached out to my old friend Prof Fredrick Sempebwa to get his views and advice on this petition? And Kyagulanyi said no." Kanyeihamba says being uncomfortable receiving help from more experienced lawyers and practitioners complicated matters for the legal team to the total detriment of their client. That as a senior lawyer, he knows Kyagulanyi's lead counsel Medard Segona's capabilities very well but arguing an election petition before 9 Supreme Court justices could simply not be his thing. That the rest of the lawyers he (Kanyeihamba) didn't know much about their profiles because they don't have that much clout and profile regarding matters of this nature. Kanyeihamba also rebukes Kyagulanyi for being disrespectful to the extent that he promised to get back to him to have more discussion about the petition but he didn't. "I was only shocked later today to receive a phone call from a journalist seeking my views that the petition has been withdrawn. I have since been trying to ring Kyagulanyi, because he remains my friend, but he isn't taking my calls anymore."
Kanyeihamba also argued against Kyagulanyi's plans to "go to the public court" arguing such will only ignite instability which isn't good for the country. He advises that Kyagulanyi, who he says he would have no problem voting for and supporting for Presidency 5 years from now, should be patient and commence preparations to trounce Gen Museveni or anyone else at the next elections in 2026. Kanyeihamba also demands that Kyagulanyi sits down and reflects on many things including the need to always consult fellow leaders widely while avoiding taking for granted the views of those he consults.
DEFENDS DOLLO
The 82-year-old man from Rubanda also defended Chief Justice Dollo and other justices against unsubstantiated claims of bias adding that had he been part of the Supreme Court panel, he would equally have dismissed the two Kyagulanyi applications (seeking to amend the petition and file more affidavits) because they were simply unnecessary. That there is no way the Supreme Court would keep permitting or granting such applications without running into problems with the time constraint that requires them to hear and dispose of the petition within 45 days. Follow the links below for video interviews
0 comments:
Post a Comment