Editor,

RE: "Green Party Supreme Court arguments marred by inconsistencies” (The New Times, July 30).

The lawsuit by the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda at the Supreme Court challenging the ongoing Parliament consultations and the wishes to change the Rwandan Constitution to allow continued leadership of President Paul Kagame was filed in the wrong place and at the wrong time.

This petition that seeks to stop the Parliament from consulting or initiating the process to amend the Constitution is not only unachievable but also lacks legal basis.

The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction whatsoever to stop the Parliament from debating, consulting or even changing the constitution and other laws. The prerogative to make laws is with the jurisdiction of the Parliament.

Worse still, the Green Party leadership did not petition the constitutionality of the new law but just a consultation process, a debate, which is legally permissible by law not only for the parliament but all the Rwandans.

Under Article 33, every Rwandan — including the Members of Parliament — has freedom of thought, opinion, conscience, religion, worship and public manifestation, as guaranteed by the state.

It is in this regard that the Green Party leader should have waited for the Constitution to be changed, then maybe he could petition the same court to challenge the constitutionality of the new law.

The Green Party’s argument that the government has breached the Constitution does not hold any legal water in the glass and is likely to be thrown out, especially as their lawyer Antoinette Mukamusoni, changed the petition and said they wanted the court to interpret the Constitution on presidential term limits.

You cannot interpret the constitutionality of an opinion or wishes of the people. It’s like accusing an unborn child of talking to people while still in the womb.

Frank Mwine, an international criminal lawyer based in the UK