Rwanda’s highest court will in six weeks determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear a petition seeking to block the process to amend the Rwandan Constitution to remove presidential term limits.

The Supreme Court has set September 9 date to decide whether it has competence to hear the case in which the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda, the country’s only opposition party, opposes the plans to amend the Constitution.

The hearing of the suit filed on June 3 against the Government of Rwanda resumed on Wednesday at the Supreme Court with the proceedings focussing mainly on the court’s mandate.

The Green Party, in its lawsuit, wants the court, which has jurisdiction to hear cases relating to presidential elections, referendums and the constitution, to block Parliament from the ongoing process to amend the Constitution to remove term limits.

However, State attorneys insist that the Supreme Court has no mandate to over the matter because it can only hear cases related to presidential polls or referendum if there are taking place.

“As of now, we don’t have any presidential election going on or a decision on the referendum. What we have seen is that legislators are carrying out consultations among citizens but there has not been any clear indication that a referendum will take place,” argued Theophile Mbonera, one of the State attorneys.

READ: Rwanda MPs step up efforts to grant Kagame third term

During the hearing that lasted half a day, the Green Party argued that there was sufficient proof that plans to remove term limits were materialising and the Supreme Court, as the country’s highest court, is mandated to protect the constitution and should therefore intervene to stop the process.

“We are saying that the referendum is currently in the preparation phase. The President of the Senate and the Speaker of the lower chamber of Parliament were on record saying that after the consultations, the next step will be holding a referendum,” said Frank Habineza, the president of the Green Party.

The party’s lawyer Antoinette Mukamusoni told the Supreme Court that the Greens had all reasons to believe that the court is well poised to protect the laws of the nation from manipulation to favour anyone.

Ms Mukamusoni said that the court can operate within its powers to stop the process, which she said was spearheaded by government officials, including ministers, who have been at the forefront of the campaign to amend the constitution to allow incumbent President Paul Kagame to contest again in 2017.

State attorneys had earlier urged the court to drop the case because the Green Party filed a suit against the Government of Rwanda which does not have a hand in the ongoing process.

“If it is a matter of public interest which involves citizens going to parliament, probably the Green Party should have gone to parliament to contest the process there because that is where it is taking place, not in this court,” argued Epimach Rubango, a State attorney.

However, the Greens contended that they had presented a petition to parliament contesting the process but did not receive feedback, hence the need to petition the Supreme Court.

READ: Rwanda opposition party alone opposes removal of term limits

Amicus curiae rejected

Earlier in the hearing, an application by Thierry Gatete, from the Centre for Human Rights-Rwanda to be a “friend of Court”, legally known as amicus curiae, was rejected after the Supreme Court judges, led by the Chief Justice Sam Rugege ruled that the centre and the lawyer had no known background or experience in providing expertise to court on a similar matter of public interest litigation.

The court also ruled that despite amicus curiae not being provided for in the Rwandan law, after visiting a previous case in which a similar application was accepted, it was found that Mr Gatete and the centre did not meet the requirements of being a friend of court because they were ‘partisan’ in their submission.

“The Supreme Court revisited the case of Agnes Nkusi/Saidat Mukakibi where the amicus curie was allowed, to see the requirements and one of them was having special experience or expertise.

“An amicus curiae also does not act as a supplementary advocate to one of the parties. Therefore the court found that it cannot accept the request because the Centre for Human Rights expressed that it needed to support and provide pro-bono service to Green Party in its case. They also have no special experience or previous research published on this issue, hence they cannot be of help to this court,” ruled Chief Justice Rugege.

In an earlier statement released by the party, it had been indicated that the amicus curiae was filed “in support” of its case.