The court held that in
interpreting a Constitution, the history of the
country and the prevailing circumstances have
to be put into consideration. That in the history
of Uganda, there has nothing been like a
problem with a very aged president or a very
young president. That one should not be denied
a chance to participate because of age citing
the preamble and National Objective II that
promotes equality. That the Justices of the
Constitutional Court were correct to find that
the restriction on the age of the President or the
Chairperson Local Council V was not a basic
pillar of the Constitution of Uganda and was
therefore not part of the basic structure.
Further, the removal of the age limit didn’t in
any way negate people’s power to choose a
leader of their choice. The removal instead
enhances their participation.