IN THE HIGH COURT UGANDA AT FORT PORTAL
BYAMUKAMA K. JAMES …………………………. PETITIONER
THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION …………… RESPONDENTS
a two horse race. The election which was organised and conducted by the 2nd Respondent, the Electoral Commission, was held on 2nd day of March 2006. The 2nd Respondent declared the 1st Respondent the winner of the election on the 3rd day of March 2006 with 39.417 votes representing 53.5% of the total votes. The Petitioner was declared to have polled 34.259 votes
which translates to 46.5% of the total votes cast while 683 votes represents 0.9% of the votes cast were declared invalid . That
the 1st Respondent emerged the winner in the election was gazetted in the Uganda gazette Vol. XCVIX No. 27 of the 5th May 2006 which is Exhibit P. 2 on the Court Record having been an admitted document.
The Petitioner brought this Petition challenging the validity, and the results of the election. He alleges that the 2nd Respondent who has the Statutory duty to conduct the election, conducted the same contrary to and in contravention of the Constitution
of Uganda , the Electoral Commission Act of Local Government Act and the Parliamentary Elections Act in that the election was tainted
with numerous electoral practices, illegal practices, election offences wide spread rigging in favour of the 1st Respondent and that there was a general failure by the 2nd Respondent to conduct the election in a free , fair and transparent manner. The Petitioner alleges that the non compliance by the
2nd Respondent with the laws and the principles laid above affected the result of the election in a substantial manner and prays that
this Court sets aside the election of the 1st Respondent as Chairperson L.C. V Kyenjojo District.
The Petitioner also alleges that the 1st Respondent personally committed illegal practices and election offences including using Government or Local Government property and
facilities, going to a polling station armed.
The Petitioner further alleges that the campaign managers and polling agents of the 1st Respondent also committed illegal acts and electoral offences such as bribing of voters and intimidation of voters and the Petitioner’s
agents. The Petitioner contends that the sum total of the illegal practices and electoral offences above was to substantially affect
the result of the election and to render it not a free and fair expression of the will and consent of the people of Kyenjojo District
in electing a District Chairperson of their choice. He prayed the election results be nullified on these grounds as well.
The Petition is supported by the affidavit of Byamukama K. James and 60 others.
The 1st Respondent filed an answer to the Petition in which he averred that the election was conducted in compliance with the Constitution,
the Electoral Commission Act, the Local Government Act and the Parliamentary Elections Act. He denied the commission of any illegal
practice or electoral offence by himself, his campaign agents or supporters. In the alternative the 1st Respondent avers that if there were any offences or illegal practices committed, there were not with his consent, approval or knowledge
and these irregularities if any did not affect the results of the election in a substantial manner. He filed a total of 145 affidavits
in support of his case.
The 2nd Respondent made an answer to the Petition denying that the election was conducted contrary to the law and principles of free and
fair election, as enshrined in Article 61 (a0 of the Constitution. The 2nd Respondent also states in its answer that if there was any non compliance with the law in conducting the election, such non
compliance did not affect the result of the election in a substantial manner.
Both the 1st and 2nd Respondents prayed that the Petition be dismissed with costs.
What remedies if any are available. BRIBERY UNDUE INFLUENCE ISSUE NO I of the Polling Stations measuring the vast majority of the 260 polling stations had no complaints and proved illegal practices.
these proceedings and to avoid being logged down by a multiplicity of rulings at every stage, rulings on these objections
were deferred. I now propose to first deal with these matters before going into the merits of the case.
Mr. Kaahwa learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent who appeared with Mr. Patrick Mugisha and Mr. Bwiruka submitted that the affidavits in support of the Petition by 21 deponents
should be struck out because each of these deponents who swore two affidavits describe themselves on the first set of affidavits
as literated while they swore the second set as literates. Counsel argued that these deponents could not be at the same time
literate and yet illiterate. He submitted that for the above reasons the said affidavits are incompetent and should be struck out.
deponents were illiterate and did not understand. The contents of the first set of their affidavits. He argued that under basing
on the provisions of Sections 101 (2) and 103 of the Evidence Act, the Respondents had the onus of proving that the deponents of
the said affidavits were illiterate. Counsel pointed out that the Respondents had the opportunity to prove this by cross-examination
which opportunity in the second set of affidavits, Mr. Katutsi submitted that the said certificate did not mean the deponents were
illiterate. His explanation was that the said certificate did not mean the deponents were illiterate. His explanation was that the
said certificate was a standard format which was inadvertently not deleted but did not at all prove the deponents were illiterate.
Here below listed are the two sets of affidavits in question. The affidavits sworn as if the deponents were literate are under list
‘A’ while those sworn by the deponents as if they were illiterate are under list “B”.
On Court Record
Deponed to by
Though Mr. Kaahwa submitted that each of the deponents to the above affidavits swore one affidavit as someone who is literate and
the other as an illiterate, this appears not to be totally true of all the deponents. Affidavits Nos. 78 and 153 sworn by Mungereza
Robert and 79 and 154 sworn by Umaru Kiiza all bear a certificate by the Commissioner for oaths as provided for in the Oaths Act
in the event of an illiterate swearing an oath. Another affidavit Mr. Kaahwa sought to strike out is No. 144 of Otuganyire Amos but
then this is deponent’s only affidavit which bears the Commissioner’s certificate under the Oaths Act meaning
the deponent swore it as an illiterate. It was contended that the deponent also deponed to a second affidavit No. 104 on the Court
record. This is not borne by the record as affidavit No. 104 is sworn by one Richard Bukenya. In the result the objection taken
by Mr. Kaahwa is not applied to the affidavits sworn by Mungereza Robert, Umaru Kiiza and Otuganyire Amos as I find them to be competent.
An affidavit is evidence on oath. When a witness depones to a set of facts, it is to be taken that such a witness knows and understands
what he/she is deponing to. In the event the deponent is illiterate either in the sense that he cannot read or write or that he does
not understand the language in which the affidavit is written the jural in the form of a certificate that the contents
of the affidavit have been read to the deponent in a language he understands is provided for under Schedule I Form B under the heading
Oaths for Affidavits. When the deponents of the first category of affidavits with the execption of Mungereza Robert, Umaru Kiiza
and Otuganyire swore to them and the Commissioner did not attach thereto a certificate to the effect that the same had been read
to them, the only inference flowing therefrom appears to be that the deponents were literate and understood the contents of those
affidavits. However when these same deponents again deponed to the affidavits in the second category and the commissioner for
Oaths attached a certificate that the deponents being illiterate he read to them. The contents of the said affidavits their literacy
is negatively. Though Mr. Katutsi Peter argued that it was the onus of the Respondents to prove the deponents were illiterate, I
can say in fact discharged this duty for the Respondents by filing the affidavits in question with the Commissioner for Oaths
declaring on the jural that he read the contents of the said affidavits to the deponents who were illiterate. I accordingly find
that though these deponents swore the first lot of affidavits as literate persons, they are in fact illiterate. Being illiterate
they did not understand the contents of the first lot of affidavits. Mr. Katutsi’s explanation that the jural in the
second lot of affidavits was inadvertent on that they are a standard from which was not deleted from the computer is not sustainable
. Having found that the deponents of the first set of affidavits were illiterate and they did not understand the contents of
their affidavits in category A above, the same are struck out.
Mr. Kaahwa had invited me also to strike out the second category of affidavits. Counsel did not appear to me to have advanced any
compelling ground why the second lot of affidavits should be struck out. The main ground in my view for striking out the first category
of affidavits was that the deponents did not understand or know their contents, because being illiterate the Commissioner for oaths
attached no certificate to the effect that he had read and explained to the deponents the contents.
With regard to the second category of affidavits the deponents swore their affidavits as illiterates after the Commissioner for Oaths
had explained to them the contents of the affidavit by including his certificate. The second category of affidavits having complied
with the Oaths Act, there is no reason to strike them out. In the result, while the affidavits in category A above, with the
exception of those sworn by Mungereza Robert, Umaru Kiiza and Otuganyire Amos, are struck out the application to strike
out the affidavits on category B fails.
Mr. Kaahwa also attached the affidavits in category B for non compliance with the Oaths Act in that the jural or the certificate
of the Commission on the said affidavits is not that prescribed by the Oaths Act. Mr. Peter Katutsi submitted that though the jural
in these affidavits was not in the very words prescribed by the Oaths Act, it substantially carried across the same meaning.
The jural prescribed for affidavits sworn by illiterates where the Commissioner for Oaths has read over the contents to the deponents
is in the following terms:-
distinctly and amolibly read over the contents of this affidavit to the deponent he/she being illiterate and explained the
nature and contents of the exhibits in the affidavit in the------------language. The deponent appeared perfectly to understand the
same and made his/her mark/signature. Thereto in my presence.”
this affidavit was read over to the deponent he being illiterate and the nature and contents of the exhibits referred to in
the affidavit explained to him in-------language which appeared to understand.”
The wording in the two formats is not exactly identical. They obviously deviate. However to my understanding they convey the same
meaning which is that the Commissioner swore the deponent who was illiterate only after having and explained to him the contents
of the affidavit in a language the deponent understands and that the commissioner before signing the affidavit had the impression
that the deponent understood its contents. In the instant case I am of the view that though the Commissioners for Oaths deviate in
the affidavits in category B from the prescribed form of the jural in the Oaths Act, they substantially comply with it. The competence
of these affidavits is accordingly not affected. This view is bolstered by the provisions of Section 43 of the Interpretation Act
if any deviation from that form which does not affect the substance of the instrument or document or which is not calculated to mislead.”
by illiterates, in the Oaths Act and as a whatever deviation there might be is not shown to have been calculated to mislead, the
objection is overruled.
in the Petition. Counsel contended that this amounts to a departure from and introduction of new matters which amounts to filing
those grounds out of time. He cited affidavits Nos. 3, 10, 11, 17, and 18 sworn by Tibahwa Stephen, Tumuhairwe Posiano, Alinaitwe
Wilber, Agaba Robert and Tweheyo Samwiri which raise complaints of allowing unauthorised persons to vote, the Presiding Officers
voting for illieterates, failure to update the Register and to delete the names of voters who had since migrated or died, closing
of the polling stations before 5.00 p.m. and of one Muganga who was not an election official being in possession of a ballot
box. Mr. Kaahwa contended that these affidavits should be struck out as the matters raised there in constitute fresh grounds of the
Petition which many case were filed outside of the time within which the Petition and its grounds ought to have been filed. Mr. Patrick
Mugisha reinforced the objection to these affidavits in question and invited court to strike them out on the authority of the
case of Amama Mbabazi Vs. Musinguzi Garuga CA. Civil Appeal No. 12/2002 where the Court of Appeal upheld the critism of the trial Judge for making a finding on a matter that had not been pleaded.
Mr. Musana, the learned lead Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that while the Petitioner concedes that the affidavits in question
were filed after the time set for filing the grounds of the Petition, the said affidavits did not at all raise fresh grounds. He
pointed out that while the Petition generally alleges the illegal practices and electoral offences committed by the Respondents,
the affidavits complained of adduce evidence of such illegal practices and electoral offences but in no way state new grounds on
which the Petitioner bases his Petition. Counsel submitted that the reasoning behind the objection is fallacious and misconceived
and prayed that the objection be overruled.
Under Section (4) of the Local Government Act a petition challenging the result of an election must be filed within 14 days after
the day on which the results have been notified by the electoral Commission in the gazette. It follows therefore
that an election Petition brought under that act after the expiration of the time limited as above is decidedly out of time and incompetent
as it will have been barred by law. Mr. Musana conceded that the time within which to file the instant petition expired on 19th May, 2006 and that the affidavits in question were filed after that date. The relevant issue to decide here is whether the contents
constitute new grounds as opposed to the grounds contained in the Petition itself.
The new grounds allegedly raised in the offending affidavits include the illegal practices of the Presiding Officers allowing unauthorised
persons to vote the Presiding Officer voting for illiterates, failure to update the voters’ register and to delete the names
of those voters who had since migrated or died, election materials falling into the possession of unauthorised persons and election
officials closing the polling stations before the official closing time of 5.00p.m. and chasing away voters who were already in the
queue ready to vote.
I have very carefully perused the Petition and the grounds of the same together with the contents of the offending affidavits No.
3, 10, 11, 17 and 18 on the court record sworn by Tumuhairwe Posiano, Alinaitwe Wilber, Agaba Robert, Tweheyo Samwiri and Tibahwa,.
Except for affidavits 17 of Agaba Robert which allows failure by Rabwoni John and John Papa to update the Register of voters
and to delete the names of voters who had migrated or died and except for the contents of the affidavit of Tweheyo Samwiri which
has in any case been struck out all the other affidavits refer to incidents of illegal practices and electoral offences which form
grounds of the Petition. For instance paragraph 7 (a) of the Petition made the fact of the ballot box falling into the possession
of unauthorised persons a ground. In the affidavit of Tibahwa Syephen he avers that he saw one muganga who was not an election official
transporting a ballot box on his motor cicyle on the polling day. In my view the Petitioner in filing this particular affidavit
did not intend to file a fresh ground of the Petition but was rather adducing evidence to the fact that a ballot box was found in
unauthorised hands. The Petitioner made the fact that the Presiding Officers allowed unauthorised persons to vote and they
themselves voted for illiterates, which are illegal practices grounds of the Petition. The affidavit of Alinaitwe providesthe evidence
of these illegal practices by citing incidences that prove them. Alinaitwe was therefore not raising any new grounds as suggested
by Counsel for the Respondent. The same illustrations applies to the affidavit evidence of Tumuhairwe Posiano. From the above
I find that execpt for the affidavit of Agaba Robert alleging failure to update the voters register and delete the names of voters
who had migrated and died, the rest of the affidavits raise no new grounds of the Petition. The objection succeeds only in respect
of the affidavit of Agaba Robert but fails in respect of the other affidavits. I have looked at the case of Amama Mbabazi Vs. Musinguzi
Garuga (Supra) but did not find it very useful as it concerned a situation where a finding was made on a point which was not a ground
of the Petition.
Mr. Kaahwa further attached affidavits Nos. 5, 10, 12, 17, 22, 24, 34, 42, 54, 57, 61, 70, 71, 89, 94, 99, 144 and 156 sworn
by Asiimwe Robert, Tumuhairwe Posiano, Tumusiime Bwire, Agaba Robert, Kaija Morris, Byamaraki, Kyamanywa Mzee Majara , Alii, Mwanguhya
Joseph, Gaston Maliro, Rutankundera Edward, Julius Kihika, Mwirumubi, Kazoora Wilfred, Stephen Rwankwenge, Kawesa Edward, Otuganyire
Amos and Kazooba Wilfred. He contended that these affidavits were sworn contrary to Section 32 of the Parliamentary Elections
Act because the deponents of these affidavits claim to have variously sworn the same as mobile agents, cordinators monitors
and supervisors of the Petitioner and yet Section 32 of the above act only provides for the appointment of 2 polling agents by each
I failed to see the merit on this objection. Section 32 of the Parliamentary Elections merely provides for polling agents who take
care of the interests of the candidate at the polling station. It does not appear to me to prohibit employing any of his supporters
by whatever name to take care of his interests. Nor does Section 32 of the above act restrict persons to give evidence in favour
of the Petitioner or in favour of any other party to a Petition to agents appointed under that Section. This objection has
no merit and it must fail.
BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF:-
petitioner to prove the allegations to the satisfaction of the Court as provided for in Section 139 of the Local Government Act.
The standard of proof has also now been put beyond debate by the Supreme Court in Retired Col Dr. Kiiza Besigye Vs Kaguta Museveni Election Petition 1/2001 where the Court stated that the standard of proof on election Petitions is on a balance of probabilities. However because the allegations
on an election Petition which the Petitioner has to prove are invariably criminal, the degree of the probability of proof is
higher than in ordinary Civil suits. See Karokora Katono Zedekia Vs. The Electoral Commission and Kagonyera Mondo Election Petition No. 0002/2001.
Mr. Mwene Kahima learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent cited a number of cases from other jurisdictions to justify his submission that the standard of proof on election petitions
is beyond reasonable doubt. These cases included the Nigerean case of Alhaji Mohamed Dikko Yusuf & Another & Chief Olusegum Aremu Akikola Obasanjo & 53, No. CA /A/EP/1/2003 The Zambian case of Anderson Kambela Mozooka Lt. General Christon Sijapi Tembo Godfrey Kenneth Muyanda & Levy Patrick Mwwanamwasa, the Electoral Commission, The Attorney General SCZ/EP/01/02/03/2002 and the East African Case of Mbowe Eliofo 1967 CA. In view of the statement of the Uganda Supreme Court of Uganda in respect of the standard of proof in election Petitions those case
are not good Law. The standard of proof for purposes Election Petitions in our Courts is that on a balance of probabilities.
Having set down the standard of proof in the present Petition I now propose to discuss the issues framed one by one. Counsel submitted
first on the 3rd issue followed by issues Nos. 1, 2 and 4.
Section 139 of the Local Government Act as follows:-
grounds if proved to the satisfaction of the Court.
affected the result of the election in a substantial manner.
or with his or her knowledge and consent or approval.
a balance of probabilities prove either that the 1st Respondent committed the alleged malpractices personally or that they were committed with his knowledge and consent or approval.
While adducing evidence to prove that the 1st Respondent committed the illegal practices and election offences presents no problem it is more difficult to prove that the alleged
illegal practices or election offences were committed with the 1st Respondent’s knowledge and consent or approval. This brings in the law concerning agency.
The law of agency as relates to Election Petitions was discussed in great detail Oder ISC as he then was in his judgment in the case of Col (Ret) Dr. Kiiza Besigye Vs. Kaguta Yoweri Museveni Supra at page 470. I will set out the relevant passage in whole as it eloquently summarises law in that regard:-
and his agent is much more intimate than that which subsists between an ordinary principal and agent. For as regards a Parliamentary
election the candidate is responsible for all the misdeeds of his agents committed within the scope of his authority, although
they were done against his express directions and even in defiance of them.
The authority may be actual or it may be implied from the circumstances. It is not necessary in order to prove agency to show that
a person was actually appointed by the candidate. If a person not appointed were to assume to act in any department of service as
an election agent, and the candidate accepted his service as such he would thereby ratify the agency, so that a man may become agent
for another in either of two ways, by actual employment or by recognition and acceptance .--------------if a person were appointed
or accepted as an agent for canvassing generally, and he were to bribe a voter, the candidate would thereby lose his Parliamentary
seat. But if he was employed or accepted to canvass a particular class for instance a master were to ask the agent to canvass
his workmen and the agent were to go out of his way, and bribe a person who was not the candidate’s workman. The candidate
would not be bound. In the one case the agent would be acting with us . The scope of his authority, though it may be in the abuse
of it, in the other , he would be acting beyond his authority and he would be no more to the candidate than a stranger. It follows
that if a person whom the candidate had not authorised to canvass at all, or take such part in the management if the election
as including canvassing, whatever else she was employed to do, the agent were to take upon himself to bribe a voter, the candidate
would not be responsible. See The Digest of Annoted British Commonwealth & European Cases 1982 Russue, Butherworths & Co.
(Publishers) Ltd. 1982 page 72.”
The learned JSC made reference in his judgment to the law on agency for electoral purposes as stated in Halsbury”s Laws of England 4th Edition Vol. 15 para. 698 which is to the effect that in order to prove agency, it is not necessary to show that the person was actually appointed by the candidate
or that he was paid.
The crucial test is whether there has been employment, or authorisation of the agent by the candidate to do some election or the
adoption of his work when done. The candidate however, is liable not only for the acts of the agents when he has himself appointed
or authorised, but also for the acts of the agents employed by his election agent or by any other agent having authority to employ
others. Oder JSC as he then was, was discussing the law of agency as applicable to Parliamentary elections which he held was applicable
to Presidential Elections. The same law and principles of agency are in my view applicable to elections to the Local Councils with
With regard to the illegal practices and electoral offences complained of by the Petitioner, I propose first to deal with those the
1st Respondent is alleged to have committed personally and then I shall proceed to deal with those allegedly committed with the knowledge
or consent or with the approval of the 1st Respondent.
the 1st Respondent who during the election in question was the incumbent L.C.V Chairperson Kyenjojo District used the official vehicle
of the L.C. V Chairperson, a Toyota Land Cruser Reg. No. LG 0025 – 50 to conduct his campaign. The Petitioner in paragraph
18 of his affidavit in support of the Petition averred that when the 1st Respondent used the official vehicle for the L.C.V Chairperson to wit Motor vehicle LG 0025 – 50, he wrote to the Chief Administrative
Officer of the District about this illegal practice per his letter dated 15th February 2006 which is D exh. 4 on the Court record. He further deponed that because no action was taken the 1st Respondent continued using the said official vehicle which was all along being driven by the official driver one Sam Rubiibi.
To further prove the allegations of the above illegal practice or electoral offence, the Petitioner relied on the following affidavit
No. of Affidavi
On the Court Record
Magezi Abubaker, Musinguzi Paul and Basaliza Stephen deponents of affidavits 100, 102 and 106 respectively aver that the 1st Respondent used motor vehicle, LG 0025 – 50. The official vehicle for the LC V Chairperson through out the campaign period
to conduct his campaign. In particular they refer to an occasion on the 1st day of February 2006 when the 1st Respondent addressed a rally at Rwaitengya Parish having travelled there in said vehicle driven by the official driver one Sam Rubiibi
– Musinguzi Paul also rebutted the denial of Sam Rubiibi of his driving the vehicle during the period in question.
Kirungi Kyalimpa in his affidavit No. 122 avers that he did see Sam Rubiibi who was driving the official vehicle of the LC. V. Chairperson
of Kyenjojo District drop the 1st Respondent at Kikara’s Bar. When he crossed the road the witness saw the said official vehicle parked at the Polling Station
and Sam Rubiibi surrounded by a crowd. Rebutted the denial of the 1st Respondent and his official driver of using the vehicle during the campaign period. Alice Basaliza in her affidavit 123 testified
that she saw Sam Rubiibi driving the official vehicle of the L.C.V Chairperson to the Polling Station which he later parked at the
home of Kabahuma. He drove away when he was attached by the youth. Geofrey Kayondo in affidavit 124 averred that he was informed
by one Baguma Kanyuma at 300 p.m. that the 1st Respondent was at the Trading Centre bribing voter’s official vehicle LG 0025-50 being driven by Sam Rubiibi which
the latter parked at the Polling Station. The vehicle was only driven away when Sam Rubiibi was confronted by the supporters of the
In his affidavit 125 Stephen Basaliza’s testimony is that he saw Sam Rubiibi, his wife and a brother of the 1st Respondent in the official vehicle of the 1st Respondent at Rwaitengya Trading Centre. The vehicle was parked at Ibrahim Kasangaki’s shop where they met the 1st Respondent’s agents Samson Manyindo and Mrs. Baguma. He averred that Sam Rubiibi then drove to Kikara’s bar where the
1st Respondent was said to be buying drinks for the voters. When the 1st Respondent was confronted by the youth he left in the said official vehicle.
Peter Bacwa and Mugisa Patrick the deponents of affidavits 126 and 127 gave similar evidence to the effect that while at the Polling
Station they saw the official vehicle of the LC. V. Kyenjojo District Reg. No. 0025-50 being driven by Sam Rubiibi who parked it
directly opposite the Polling Station. Because Sam Rubiibi and the 1st Respondent were being accused by the public of bribing voters. The former drove away and parked at the Trading Centre. Mugisa
Patrick was the Presiding Officer at this Polling Station. Tibenda Stephen Omuhereza, who swore affidavit 128, rebutted the
claim by Moses Kikumbo that he was during the campaigns employed in a private vehicle. He averred that that this could not have been
possible because the said Moses Kikumbo was himself a candidate and was seen canvassing votes for himself in the Nissan Sunny looking
for his own votes.
In her affidavit 157 Margret Kyamanywa averred that Baguma reported to her that the 1st Respondent and his group were distributing money and buying drinks for voters at Kikara’s bar. She saw Sam Rubiibi, his wife
and two other people in the L.C.V Chairperson’s official vehicle parked opposite the polling Station. She approached them and
challenged them why they were bribing. A commotion followed and Sam Rubiibi drove away. Ajuna Apolo Kasangaki who swore affidavit
158 averred that he saw the 1st Respondent disembark from Motor vehicle LG 0025-50 driven by Sam Rubiibi. The 1st Respondent called him and others into a bar where the 1st Respondent bought a 3 litre jerrycan of potent gin known commonly as (kicooli) and gave it to the people present to drink. In the
mean time Sam Rubiibi had parked the said vehicle at the house of the father of the witness one Ibrahim Kasangaki. The deponent of
affidavit 140 Kiiza Henry Buhwa averred that he is resident in the house that adjoins Matiri Trading Centre Polling Station ground.
On polling day he saw the 1st Respondent being driven on motor vehicle LG 0025- 50 by Sam Rubiibi. He also testified that it is not true that Moses Kikumbo was
driving the 1st Respondent as he had his own campaign to conduct his Nissan Sunny 1200. Owoyesigire Omuhereza and Otuganyire Amos who swore
affidavits 143 and 144 respectively averred in identical terms that on polling day they saw the 1st Respondent being driven at Matiri Trading Centre at the Matiri Trading Centre Polling Station where he came out armed with a gun.
Apart from the above evidence the Petitioner relies on to prove the use of Local Council or Government Facilities ad in particular
the Official LC. V Chairperson’s vehicle Reg. LG-0025-50, the Petitioner also relies on the following affiavits:-
No. of Affidavits
Atuhairwe K. James
Muhumuza Bosco Ronald
All the above deponents averred that on polling day at around 11.00a.m. they saw the 1st Respondent being driven by his official driver Sam Rubiibi on motor vehicle LG 0025 – 50 which is the official vehicle
of the LC. V. Chairperson of Kyenjojo District.
Both in his reply to the Petition and in paragraph 17 of the affidavit in support of the answer to the Petition the 1st Respondent denies having used the official vehicle of the L.C.V Chairperson of Kyenjojo District for his campaign. He averred
further that during the period in question he used a hired Land Rover Reg. No. UAG 819 and his personal motor vehicle Registration
No. UAF 703 L.
Nsungwa Alphael who swore affidavit No. 67 for the 1st Respondent averred that on polling day at about 10.00a.m. the 1st Respondent came to Matiri Trading Centre driving a small car. He stopped at the stage at the Trading Centre and handed the keys of
the car to Moses Kikumbo who drove it towards Kampala.
Sgt. Kamanyire Philip, deponent of affidavit 115 for the 1st Respondent, averred during the election campaigns the 1st Respondent used his private vehicles Reg. Nos UAF 703 L and UAG 819 M and was being driven by Kikumbo Moses. He testified that on
polling day he was in the campaign of the 1st Respondent throughout the day. The 1st Respondent passed through Matiri Trading Centre that day to pick his driver.
The deponent of affidavit 144 for the 1st Respondent, Asiimwe Sulaiman deponed that during the campaign he was the driver of the 1st Respondent in Land Rover Reg. No. UAG 819 M and also drove the 1st Respondent’s private vehicle UAF 703L. Rubiibi Samuel the official driver of the 1st Respondent who swore affidavit No. 46 for the 1st Respondent averred that the official vehicle of the L.C.V Chairperson was handed over to the Chief Administrative Officer and on
no account did he drive the same during the campaigns.
Mr. Katutsi submitted that the above evidence overwhelmingly proved that the 1st Respondent contrary to Section 126 of the Local Government Act used Motor vehicle No. LG 0025 – 50 which is a local Council
facility during his campaigns. He argued that the fact that as a result of the complaint by the Petitioner P. Exh. 4, the Chief Administrative
Officer Kyenjojo District wrote Annexture 5 to the 2nd Respondent’s answer to the Petition which is exhibit P.2.- 1 on the court record restraining the 1st Respondent from using the said official vehicle proved that indeed the 1st Respondent was using it. He submitted that inspite of having been restrained , the 1st Respondent obstinately continued to use the said motor vehicle as testified to by the numerous affidavits sworn in support of the
Petitioner’s case. Counsel submitted that from the numerous affidavits pinning the 1st Respondent in this illegal practice, the only inference is that he indeed did commit the same as it is inconceivable that up
to 30 people could have got together to conspire to falsely implicate the 1st Respondent in this illegal practice. Mr. Katutsi invited Court to find that the Petitioner has proved this illegal practice
on a balance of probability which on itself applies to nullify an election under the provisions of Section 139 ( c) of the Local
Mr. Patrick Mugisha the lead Counsel for 1st Respondent submitted that Section 126 of the Local Government Act prohibits the use of Local Council or Government facilities for
campaigning. He argued that in the instant case the affidavit avers that a deponent saw the said official vehicle was being used
by the 1st Respondent in the midst of campaigns nor did the Petitioner make such a complaint and at that the Petitioner in cross-examination
denied seeing the 1st Respondent using the said vehicle during the campaigns.
Mr. Mugisha attached the evidential value of P. E. X. 4 and EX P.2 – 1 because these did not state the dates of the use
of the vehicle. He pointed out that the Returning Officer/Chief Administrative Officer of Kyenjojo District Muhenda R. Owen in his
letter to the 1st Respondent merely stated the law but no finding that he had been using the said vehicle. Counsel submitted that even if such
a finding had been made, it would have been contrary to the rules of natural justice as an explanation was not sought
from the 1st Respondent. Counsel contended certain affidavit which were out of time aver that the 1st Respondent was seen using the vehicle in question of the campaign period and therefore not covered by Section 126 of the Local Government
The relevant part of Section 126 of the Local Government Act with regard to the matter under consideration reads as follows:-
public office, he or she shall not use local Council or Government facilities for the purpose of campaigning for election under this
ordinarily attached to his or her office to the execution of his or her duties.”
latter don’t have unfair advantage over their competitors at the expense of the public.
Though Mr. Patrick Mugisha submitted that none of the many people who swore affidavits in support of the case for the petitioner
avers to having seen the 1st Respondent using the official vehicle during the campaigns, Magezi Abubaker, Musinguzi Paul and Basaliza Stephen in their affidavits
100,102 and 106 respectively, all aver that the 1st Respondent used his official vehicle throughout the campaign period and cite a campaign meeting he held at the home of Byamukama
alias Sadam on the 1/2/2006 to which he traveled in the official vehicle Reg. No. LG 0025-50.
Counsel also argued that the affidavits which claim to have seen the 1st Respondent using the official vehicle were out of time. Earlier in this judgment, the matter of these affidavits was exhaustively
dealt with and they were found not to be out of time as none of them raised new ground of the petition but merely provided
evidence of the grounds of the Petition.
Mr. Patrick Mugisha also submitted that Section 126 of the Local Government Act applies to campaigns done during the campaign period
gazetted by the Electoral Commission. He contended that on the instant case the campaign period gazetted in the Uganda Gazette of
13th January 2006 was between 16th January 2006 and 26th February 2006 and therefore even if the 1st Respondent used the said vehicle on polling day such use did not fall under the arm of Section 126 of the Local Government.
I must respectfully disagree. Section 126 above merely talks about campaigning but not campaigning during the campaign period.
To limit using of such facilities during the campaign period, which is not even the provision in the first place, would lead
to ridiculous consequences. The mischief Section 126 of the Local Government Act seeks to get rid of is an employee of a Local Government
gaining undue advantage over his/her opponents in election by using public resources. To say it is alright for such a political leader
to take such advantage to campaign or canvass for votes outside of the campaign period would be to defeat the purpose of the law.
I make a finding that Section 126 of the Local Government operates from the time a person becomes a candidate until the conclusion
of the election.
With regard to the evidence adduced by the Petitioner to prove the allegation of the use of the official vehicle by the 1st Respondent contrary affidavits all aver that they saw the 1st Respondent on polling day being driven in motor vehicle LG 0025- 50 by Sam Rubiibi.
The rest of the affidavits are by deponents who saw the 1st Respondent being driven in motor vehicle LG 0025- 50 by Sam Rubiibi at Matiri Trading Centre and Matiri Polling Station.
The 1st Respondent and Sam Rubiibi in his affidavit No. 146 dispute these allegations. They are further supported in this by the affidavits
of Sgt. Kamanyire, Moses Kikumbo and Asiimwe Sulaiman whose affidavits are 115, 72 and 114 in support of the Reply to the Petition
by the 1st Respondnet. There are others though but not as specific in denial.
I have carefully evaluated the affidavits of both for the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent . In all the affidavits for the Petitioner, the deponents are specific as to the time of arrival of the 1st Respondent, the Registration of the official vehicle he was driving in, the driver of the said vehicle and even the passengers on
the vehicle. Though in law a fact is not necessarily proved by the size of the numbers alone, in the instant case over 40 affidavits
with no major contradictions aver that they saw the 1st Respondent using the said vehicle. Like the learned Chief Justice B, Odoki wondered in Col (Ret) Col Kiiza Besigye Vs. Kaguta Yoweri Museveni (Supra) it is not possible that over 40 people would conspire to accuse the 1st Respondent if he was innocent. I find that the affidavits sworn in support of the case for the 1st Respondent are a pack of lies.
Mr. Patrick Mugisha attempted to discredit the evidential value of the letter of the Returning Officer / Chief Administrative Officer
saying that it didn’t make a finding that the 1st Respondent was using the said vehicle and that it merely stated the law. This argument is based on the premises that both the 1st Respondent and his official driver claimed that the said vehicle was surrendered to the Chief Administrative officer and was parked
on the District Headquarters yard. If this had been the case the Returning officer would not have written to the 1st Respondent spelling the legal requirement to desist using the vehicle. In such circumstances what he would probably have done
would have been to reply to the Petitioner saying he found no merit in his complaint. Having instead written Exhibit
R 2 – 1 to the 1st Respondent leads to the inference that the letter had not surrendered his official vehicle and was indeed using it in the campaigns
as alleged. That must have been the only reason.
Moses Kikumbo who had sworn affidavit 72 in support of the answer to the Petition by the 1st Respondent averred that during the election campaigns he was employed by the 1st Respondent to drive the latter’s private motor vehicle UAF 703 L. Apart from evidence on behalf of the Petitioner that Moses
Kikumbo could not have been employed to drive the 1st Respondent because he himself was a candidate and had to canvass and indeed canvassed votes himself in his Nissan Sunny 1200 Pick-up,
Asiimwe Sulaiman in his affidavit 144 deponed that he was throughout the campaigns the drive of the 1st Respondent in Motor vehicle UAG 819 M Land Rover.
From the evidence adduced by the Petitioner, which I find to be overwhelming, I find the Petition has proved on a balance of probabilities
that the 1st Respondent used the official vehicle of Kyenjojo District Local Council to conduct his campaign contrary to Section 126 of the Local
It is alleged in paragraph 13 (a) of the Petition that contrary to Section 42 of the Parliamentary Elections Act the 1st Respondnet went to Matiri Trading Centre Polling Station on poling day armed with an AK 47 Assault Riffle. To prove this illegal
practice the Petitioner relied on the affidavits of the very witnesses who swore affidavits to seeing the 1st Respondent use the official vehicle of the L.C.V Chairperson at Matiri Trading Centre Polling Station. The relevant affidavits which
have already been listed above are 53, 62, 54, 63, 55, 66, 67, 129, 130, 132, 131, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 149, 152, 148, 143, 144,
145, 146, 147 and 139 in support of the Petition. The evidence in these affidavits is generally that the deponents saw the
1st Respondent being driven in the official vehicle of the LC.V Chairperson by Sam Rubiibi who was his official driver. On arrival at
the polling station the 1st Respondent disembarked armed with an AK 47 Assault Riffle. He held the Riffle in the left hand while in the right hand he carried
a walking stick. The deponents all stated that the above event took place on polling day as around 11.00a.m.
A few of the deponents added details of what transpired. Sam Katusabe who was at the polling station and swore affidavit 53 deponed
that the said official vehicle was driven to the polling station and parked next to his own vehicle. In that vehicle there were the
1st Respondent his uniformed and armed guard the driver and a fourth man he did not know. It was his evidence that the 1st Respondnet asked Mwanguhya Joseph what he was doing at the polling station and on Mwanguhya Joseph asking him why he was carrying
a gun, he replied that things had become tough and that he was going back to Kyankwanzi. Mwanguhya then asked the 1st Respondent why he should go to Kyankwanzi instead of going to the District Headquarters.
Mwanguhya Joseph himself who swore affidavit 54 in support of the petition gave identical evidence to that of Sam Katusabe. Stephen
Kyaligonza, the deponent of affidavit 62 in support of the Petition, after relating how the 1st Respondent came out of his official vehicle armed with a gun and walking stick, averred that he heard him say “ if it means
going back to Kyankwanzi we shall go, if it means beating people we shall beat them” while Kiiza Henry Buhwa the deponent of
affidavit 63 stated that he heard the 1st Respondent say “ if it means beating people we shall beat them, we are going back to Kyankwanzi.
In paragraph 8 of his answer to the Petition, the 1st Respondent denied going to Matiri Trading Centre polling station armed with a gun on polling day. He was supported by Nsungwa Alphael
who swore affidavit 67 in support of the 1st Respondent’s reply and by Kamanyire Philip the deponent of affidavit 115. Nsungwa Alphael averred that on polling day the 1st Respondent went to Matiri Trading Centre to pick up his drive Moses Kikumbo but he did not reach Matiri Trading Centre polling station.
The witness did not see the 1st Respondent armed. Kamanyire Philip deponed that he was the bodyguard of the 1st Respondent and that on polling day the 1st Respondent was not armed as alleged. Affidavits 27, 73 and 68 sworn in support of the 1st Respondent’s reply by Kababito Leonida, Moses Kikumbo and Kantu Samuel Abooki respectively also support the case of the 1st Respondent.
Mr. Musana submitted that by going armed to Matiri Trading Centre polling station the 1st Respondent committed an illegal practice contrary to Section 42 of the Parliamentary Election Act. He submitted that this electoral
offence is created in Local Government’s elections by the provisions of Section 172 of the Local Governments Act which provides
Act in force shall apply to the elections of Local Councils with such modifications as may be deemed necessary by the Electoral Commission.”
therefore applicable. The 1st Respondent committed the offence or illegal practice personally and therefore the case falls squarely under S. 139 ( c) of the Local
Government Ac, Counsel argued. He pointed out that the incident is testified to by up to 30 affidavits which constitutes overwhelming
Mr. Patrick Mugisha submitted that the interpretation assigned to Section 42 of the Parliamentary Elections Act vis avis Section
172 of the Local Government Act is not correct because Section 42 above is an applied provision. He submitted that the Local Governments
Act creates illegal practices and election offences in Sections 147 – 159 but deliberately excludes the offence created
in Section 42 of the Parliamentary Elections Act which could not have escaped the attention the attention of the Legislature.
Counsel contended that it is not possible for the Legislature to create an offence by mere reference as that would offend against
the fundamental principle of criminal law that no one shall be punished for an offence unless it is specifically provided for by
Statute. Mr. Patrick Mugisha argued that the provisions of Section 172 can not be used to interprete the word “ this act” under Section 139 ( c) of the Local Government Act to include Parliamentary Elections Act because:-
its function, to revert to other provisions for procedural purposes.
only to offences committed under the Local Governments Act. The provision had in mind that there were other offences that could be
committed by a candidate punishable by any other law- but singled out only those committed under the Local Governments Act.
On the evidence with regard to the 1st Respondent going to Matiri Trading Centre Polling Station Mr. Patrick Mugisha found it contradictory. Counsel submitted that it was
the 1st Respondent’s bodyguard who was armed but not the respondent himself. He argued that for the 1st Respondent to go within one kilometre of a polling station with his armed security and was not in breach of Section 42 of Parliamentary
Section 42 of the Parliamentary Elections Act makes it an offence for a person, while armed with armed or ammunition during any part
of polling day to approach within one kilometre a polling station reads in full:-
within one kilometre of a polling station with arms and ammunition unless called upon to do so by lawful authority or where he or
she is ordinarily entitled by virtue of his or her office to carry arms.”
by reference. It provides:-
“ 172 For any issue not provided for under this part of the Act, the Presidential Elections Act and the Parliamentary Elections Act
in force shall apply to the elections of Local Councils with such modifications as may be deemed necessary by the Election Commission.”
in general terms and by it the legislature appears to have aided part of its powers to the electoral commission giving it powers
to modify provisions of an act of Parliament. The fact that the Electoral Commission has so far under taken no such modifications
is evidence that it did not consider itself up to the task. This appears to be the only aspect of Section 172 of the Local Government
Act but not the general reference to the Presidential and Parliamentary Elections Acts.
Mr. Mugisha dwelt on the intention of the legislature and submitted that had Parliament wished
to make the offence created under Section 42 of the Parliamentary Act an offence under the Local Government
Act it would have directly provided for it in the latter Act. Not having done so, it could
not have intended that the offence would be created by reference under S. 172 of the Local Government Act,
Still talking of the wisdom of the legislature , if it did not wish the offence under
Section 42 of the Parliamentary Elections Act to be created by reference under Section 172 of the Local Government
Act it would in its wisdom have excluded it expressly from those provisions of the Presidential and Parliamentary Elections
I also agree that legislation by reference is not the best of practice particularly in
case of offences with penal sanctions. In this case the three Acts, the Parliamentary Elections Act, Presidential Elections
Act and the Local Governments Act are of one genuine. Their objective is democratization of Uganda society by the
holding of free and fair elections leading to good governance. They are not primarily penal in intent. Given the
wisdom of the legislature it would not have intended that going armed within one kilometer of a polling station which militates
against the principle of free and fair elections is an offence under the Parliamentary Elections Act but not under the Local
Government Act. Such a position would be contrary to the letter and spirit of Article 61 of the Constitution
. Though Section 172 of the Local Governments Act may not be the best example of draftmanship, it all
the same incorporates Section 42 of the Parliamentary Elections Act into the Local Governments
Act making it an offence thereunder.
With regard to the evidence in proof of the allegation that the 1st Respondent went to Matiri Trading Centre Polling Station , armed with a gun, the Petitioner relied on the
evidence of the thirty or so witnesses who deponed that they saw the 1st Respondent being driven in the Kyenjojo District LC. V Chairperson’s official vehicle
on polling day. In their same affidavits , they averred that the 1st Respondent came to the Polling Station at 11.00a.m. disembarked from the vehicle carrying
an A.K. 47 gun in the left hand and a walking stick on the right hand. In particular Mwanguhya
Joseph, who swore affidavit No. 54M support of the petition , deponed that he confronted
the 1st Respondent and asked him why he had come to the polling station armed to which the latter replied
“ things have become tough, I am going back to Kyankwanzi” The deponent of affidavit 53
Sam Katusabe swor e to having heard the above conversation and to have seen the 1st Respondent armed as alleged. The deponent of affidavit 62 Kyaligonza Stephen and Kiiza Henry Buhwa
in his affidavit No. 63 both averred to having heard the conversation between the 1st Respondent and Mwanguhya Joseph. Though they differ on what the former said to Mwanguhya Joseph.
According to Kyaligonza Stephen the 1st Respondent said “ If it means going back to Kyankwanzi we shall go, if it means beating
people we shall beat them and according to Kiiza Henry Buhwa the 1st Respondent is reported to have said “ if it means beating people we shall beat them, we are not going back to Kyankwanzi”.
The 1st Respondent denied the allegations . He was supported in this by the affidavits of Sergeant Kamanyire Philip, Nsungwa
Alphael and Kikumbo Moses Nos. 115, 67 and 72 in support of the 1st Respondent’s Answer to the Petition. In all these affidavits the deponents averred that on polling day the 1st Respondent was not armed and except for passing through Matiri Trading Centre, the 1st Respondent did not reach the polling station.
Though the 1st Respondent and his witnesses above denied going to Matiri Trading Centre Polling Station there is the eye witness
evidence of close to thirty witnesses who deponed to seeing the 1st Respondent at the Polling station armed with a gun. Some of them heard him and Mwanguhya Joseph exchange words.
These witnesses are the same ones who testified to seeing the 1st Respondent using his official motor vehicle at the same Matiri Trading Centre Polling Station and whose evidence
I had found credible. Most of these deponent s were residents of the neighbouring village to that of the 1st Respondent and the 1st Respondent being a public political leader, there is no chance that these witnesses could have been
mistaken about the identity of the 1st Respondent. Besides the whole incident took place during broad day light. Though the mere number of witnesses is
not in the instant case the fact that about thirty witnesses all state having seen the 1st Respondent on polling day at Matiri Trading Centre Polling Station armed with a gun is compelling. They are unanimous
in describing that the 1st Respondent carried the gun in his left hand while he held a walking stick on the right hand. It is also in conceivable
that thirty witnesses would get together and plot to implicate another and at that with consistency.
Mr. Patrick Mugisha attached the evidence for the Petitioner on the grounds that what Kyaligonza Sephen and Kiiza Henry Buhwa
stated the 1st Respondent to have said to Mwanguhya Joseph is different from what Mwanguhya Joseph himself
and Sam Katusabe reported the 1st Respondent to have said. I found this discrepancy minor as the root of the matter in issue is whether
the 1st Respondent was armed at the polling station or not and not what he said.
In the result I am inclined to reject the denial of the 1st Respondent. I believe the witnesses for the Petitioner and find that the 1st Respondent indeed went to Matiri Trading Centre Polling Station armed with an A.K. 47 Riffle Contrary to Section 42 of
the Parliamentary Elections Act, and therefore committed the illegal practice and electoral offence personally.
1ST RESPONDENT’S BODYGUARD GOING ARMED TO THE POLLING STATION
The Petitioner did not plead that an electoral offence was committed when the escort of the 1st Respondent one Sgt. Kamanyire went to the polling station at Matiri armed with a riffle. However a few deponents to the affidavits
which implicated the 1st Respondent in going to Matiri Trading Centre polling station armed also aver that Sgt. Kamanyire Philip the bodyguard
of the 1st Respondent went to the Polling Station armed. Sgt. Kamanyire himself and the 1st Respondent in crossexamination admitted that much. On this basis Mr. Musana submitted that it should be found that the
said Sgt Kamanyire Philip committed an electoral offence or an illegal practice Contrary to Section
42 of the Parliamentary Elections Act with the knowledge or consent and approval of the 1st Respondent. On this type of illegal practice by body guards , Mr. Musana referred to the case of AMAMA MBABAZI VS. MUSINGUZI GARUGA ELECTION PETITION APPEAL NO. 18/2002 where the trial Judge was criticized for making a finding that the appellant’s body guards had committed
an election offence when the Petitioner had not pleaded such an offence. I am of the view that the authority cited
by Mr. Musana does not in any way support his case. It is rather in favour of the 1st Respondent in that it was not pleaded in the Petition that Sgt. Kamanyire Philip went to the
Polling Station Armed Contrary to Section 42 of the Parliamentary Elections Act with the knowledge or consent and approval.
Mr. Musana’s submissions in this regard is rejected.
There is no averment in the Petition that the 1st Respondent used a bodyguard being a Government or Local Council facility to conduct his campaign Contrary to Section 126 of the Local
Government s Act. Nor is there any affidavit to that effect. However during the cross examination of the 1st Respondent he testified that at the commencement of the campaigns he requested for a body guard and one
Sgt. Kamanyire Philip was assigned to him. It was his evidence that the said Sgt. Kamanyire Philip provided him security through
out the campaign.
Mr. Musana submitted that this constitutes an admission that the 1st Respondent used a Government or Local Council facility to wit a body guard to conduct his campaign. Apart from
not having shown him the body guard was used to conduct the 1st Respondent ‘s campaign . The Petitioner did not set down the use of the bodyguard as a ground of his Petition
nor did he adduce any affidavit evidence of this allegation. As this Petition cannot be decided on grounds other than
those raised in the Petition, this ground raised during submissions must fail. Besides what Mr. Musana describes as
an admission merely states that the 1st Respondent had a body guard during the campaign but not that he used such a body guard to conduct his campaign.
The petitioner in paragraph 13 ( c) of the Petition alleges that the 1st Respondent committed the illegal practice and electoral offence of bribery Contrary to Section 147 of the
In paragraph 16 of his affidavit in support of the Petition the Petitioner avers that he received from his agents
and supporters information that during the election there was widespread bribery and voter buying by the Respondent,
his campaign agents, managers and supporters in the run up to the election and on polling day itself.
In support of this allegation the Petitioner relied on the affidavits of Rusoke Moses, Mutambuzi Edison,
Tugume Siverino, Agaba Robert, Ntambineza Julius, Gaston Maliro, Kituufu Zaverio, Julius Kihika, Mwirumubi, Kazooba Wilfred
and Karugaba Patrick which are affidavits 6, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17 36, 57, 69, 70 and 73 in support of the Petition respectively.
Rusoke Moses averred in his affidavit that on polling day one Kusemererwa a polling agent of the 1st Respondent slaughtered an animal (cow) at the Trading Centre near Kyongera polling station in Kyarusozi Sub-County and
issued the meat free to voters whom he instructed to vote for his candidate. He also averred in the same affidavit that
Nyakahuma John Bosco who was the second polling agent for the 1st Respondent in the polling station bought “ busera” local alcohol for voters and instructed them
to vote for his candidate. Mutambuzi Edison deponed that one Karaachi a campaign agent for the 1st Respondent stopped voters from going to vote at Kyongera Trading Centre polling station by bribing them. He added that the
money given for bribing was given by Mwesige who was the District Councilor for Kyarusozi Sub-County.
Tugume Severino’s testimony was that the L.C.II movement Chairman bribed his fellow polling
agent one Bekunda, got two ballot books or 100 ballot papers from the Presiding Officer, ticked and stiffed them
into the ballot box. Agaba Robert deponed that the campaign agents of the 1st Respondent namely Kabarole L.C.I Chairman Kyanguha, Bacwa Stephen, Mwesige Francis, Kasaija John and one January bribed
voters along the roads leading to Buhura and Kagorra – Itambiro polling stations. He also deponed that this malpractices
was orchestrated by the Presiding Officer at Buhura polling station one Adolf Kato a known supporter of the 1st Respondent.
Gaston Maliro averred that as a coordinator of the Petitioner’s campaign he witnessed widespread and serious bribery
and vote buying by agents of the 1st Respondent. He made a police report against Rwanyabuzana at Nyaruzigati polling post under SD Ref. 05/02/03/06. Kituufu Zaverio
‘s affidavit is to the effect that on polling day two shops at Mahasa Trading Centre belonging to Namara and Mrs. Kaijabwango
were open and were being used for distributing salt to induce voters to vote the 1st Respondent. The shop owners confirmed to him that the salt was being given out so that the recipients could vote for the 1st Respondent. According to the affidavit evidence of Julius Kihika Mwirumubi he found L.C. officials
at Rugombe Trading Centre distributing money to voters on polling we and soliciting votes for the 1st Respondent . he reported the incident to the police, the police arrested the culprits who admitted that they were
distributing money but on the instructions of L.CIII Chairman of Bugaaki Sub-County. Julius Kihika Mwirumubi also averred
that all the LC.s in Bugaaki Sub-County were involved in the same malpractice . Sam Magezi who was the brain behind this malpractice
was arrested while still dishing out money in Mabaale , Kyabaranga parish after having failed to answer police summons. Kazoba
Wilfred deponed that Rwanyabuzana who was a campaign agent of the 1st Respondent and the movement Chairperson in the area was reported to the police for bribing and arrested . The last affidavit
in support of the Petitioner’s allegation in this regard is that of Karugaba Patrick.
Patrick Karugaba who states that he is a Parish Youth Councilor and that he supported the 1st Respondent as he was the NRMO flag bearer. He averred that on polling day he was called from his business premises
in Kijongobya to Mpara Trading Centre by one Emmanuel Tumusiime alias Brown who is the L.C.III Chairperson and
the 1st Respondent’s Chief Campaign manager in Mpara Sub-County. The latter gave him Shs. 20,000 to hire a motor
cycle to cover Kijongobya , Kisagazi, Ruteerwa and Kamutuumi polling stations. He also used the said motor
cycle to transport voters to the poling stations to vote for the 1st Respondent. At Kijongobya polling station one Jane Mwesige who was the 1st Respondent’s polling agent informed him that the polling agent of the Petitioner was too strict against cheating. He
averred that the said Jane Mwesige gave to him Shs. 20,000 to pass on to the Petitioner’s agent to silence him.
Mr. Karugaba Patrick further deponed that after the above transaction with the agent of the Petitioner, the Presiding
Officer ticked 3 ballot books comprising 150 ballot papers in favour of the 1st Respondent and stuffed them into the ballot box.
Again Emmanuel Tumusiime alias Brown approached him at 10am. On poling day and informed him that the polling agents of the petitioner
at Kasagazi polling station were being stubborn. Emmanuel Tumusiime then gave him Shs. 30,000 and instructed him to proceed there
and bribe the agent s so that they could keep quiet. He proceeded there as instructed and gave Shs. 10,000 to the Presiding
Officer one Katusabe Christopher Shs. 10,000 Mugisha Richard one of the polling agents of the petitioner and
Shs. 5000 to each of the 1st Respondent’s polling agents Mwesige Vinent and Musa. All the above received the bribe and they started stuffing
ballot papers in favour of the 1st Respondent.
Karugaba Patrick lastly averred that on the afternoon of the poling day when he went to Kamutuumi polling station Emmanuel Tumusiime
alias Brown found him there and he gave Shs. 20,000/= to a polling Assistant called Kabyanga and Shs. 10,000 to
the Petitioner polling agent Kabasinguzi Agnes. After this the Polling Assistant began issuing multiple ballot papers
to known supporters of the 1st Respondent in complicity with polling officials and the agents of the Petitioner who had been compromised.
The 1st Respondent in his paragraph 8 ( e) of his answer to the Petition avers that he did not himself or with, his approval, consent
and knowledge engage in acts of bribery. He repeats the same denial in paragraph 15 of his affidavit in support
of his answer to the petition. The case for the 1st Respondent is supported by Kabyanga Julius, Sam Magezi, Emmanuel Tumusiime and AIP Ogwal Michael who swore affidavit 98, 96, 97 and
127 in support of the 1st Respondent’s answer to the Petition. Kabyanga Julius who was a poling assistant at Kamutuumi polling station denied having
been given money by Emmanuel Tumusiime to make him issue multiple ballot papers to supporters of the 1st Respondent. He deponed that the allegation that he and Muhairwe Alice were deployed to give money to and instruct voters for the
bus or the 1st Respondent are false. Sam Magezi denied that Emmanuel Tumusiime instructed the LC.s to distribute money to voters or
to solicit votes for the 1st Respondent . The witness deponed that he knows of no LC.s who were arrested in connection with bribery during the election and that
in any case these allegedly arrested are not known to him. He also averred that on the eve of polling day he was
suspected to have been in illegal possession of firearms and ballot papers but the police and army cleared him of the
suspicion. On his part Emmanuel Tumusiime the L.C.III Mpara Sub-County denied in his affidavit ever having been an agent
of any candidate. He averred that he did not give money to Patrick Karugaba to hire a motor bike and to look for votes. He also deponed
that he did not give Shs. 20,000 to the Presiding Officer of Kijongobya Polling Station for him to condone cheating.
The 1st Respondent also relied on the affidavit evidence of AIP Ogwal Michael who averred that only 9 cases of election malpractice were
reported the election of the L.C.V Chairperson for Kyenjojo District. He deponed that in seven of the cases reported no offence was
detected whereas two of the cases were referred to the Electoral Commission.
Mr. Musana submitted that this was an election held under the multiparty system of Governance, in which the 1st Respondent was the flag bearer of his party the NRM/O . He submitted that of the names of people allegedly involved in
the illegal practices of bribery, the 1st Respondent admitted they were his agents, Chairman of his party of Local Council members at various levels.
Mr. Musana contended that Kanyamuzana who was a movement Chairman was implicated in the bribery allegations by affidavit 57 in support
of the Petition. The case against him was reported under SD/05/02/03/06 of Kyarusozi Police Post which is reflected in affidavit
127 sworn by AIP Ogwal Michael in support of the answer of the 1st Respondent to the Petition. Though Rwanyabuzana himself in his affidavit 28 denies ever bribing anybody and being reported
to the police.
Counsel pointed out that Sam Magezi , the L.C.III Chairman Bugaaki was arrested distributing money and his case was reported under
SD01/02/03/2006. He also cited Emmanuel Tumusiime alias Brown, L.C.III Chairperson Mpara Sub-County who was implicated
by Patrick Karugaba a person from the camp of the 1st Respondent.
Emmanuel Tumusiime is involved in many polling stations. Jane Mwesige or Councilor for Kyarusozi is also
implicated by Patrick Karugaba in birbery. Mr. Musana contended that apart from the above their were many other instances
Mr. Bwiruka submitted that in all the incidents of bribery cited none is cited where the 1st Respondent bribed a voter. He pointed out that the only allegation of bribery are against persons who were either holding positions
in the NRO Party of those alleged to be campaign agents. Counsel submitted that there is nothing to show that these persons were
acting with the knowledge, approval and consent of the 1st Respondent. Mr. Bwiruka submitted that though Rwanyabuzana was accused of bribery those allegations were rebutted by affidavits 107,
123, 26, 29, 72 and 114 sworn in support of the answer of the 1st Respondent to the petition by Gambogo K. James, Bataringaya Peter, Charles Rwanyabuzana, Mutambuzi and Mwesige Christopher
respectively. The allegation is further disproved because the affidavit of AIP Ogwal Michael proves that though
the accusations against Rwanyabuzana were lodged with the police, the latter found out nothing was found on him. Mr.
Bwiruka also submitted that the allegations of bribery against Emmanuel Tumusiime alias Brown has not been proved and they are denied.
Mr. Bwiruka submitted that Karugaba Patrick who alleges that he was an agent of the 1st Respondent and yet attaches no appointment letter nor is he mentioned as an agent in the 1st Respondent ‘s campaign programme. He submitted that in the circumstances Karugaba Patrick is a supporter of the Petitioner.
With regard to the allegations of bribery against Mwesige Christopher, District Councilor for Kyarusozi, Counsel submitted these
were not proved because those who implicated him did not make a report to the police or other relevant authorities. Counsel said
the same of the allegations by Karugaba Patrick against Jane Mwesige. He contended that all in all the allegations of bribery
have not been proved by the Petitioner.
Section 147 of the Local Government Act as far as it is relevant to the instant case provides as follows:-
another person to vote or refrain from voting for a candidate, or gives, provides or causes to be given or provided any money,
gift or other consideration to another person, to influence that person’s voting, commits an illegal practice of
the offence of bribery.
before the polls on polling day offers, procures or provides or promises to procure alcoholic
beverages to any person commits an offence of illegal practice.
The Petitioner leveled numerous allegations of bribery against the 1st Respondent and various other persons including the 1st Respondent’s agents, movement officials and LCs. I propose to tackle the allegations against these other
persons first and shall then go back to the allegations against the 1st Respondent.
It was alleged by Rusoke Moses that on polling day one Kusemererwa, a polling agent of the first Respondent slaughtered a cow near
Kyongera polling station in Kyarusozi Sub-County and issued the meat free of charge to voters whom he instructed to vote for his
candidate. In the same affidavit Rusoke Moses alleged that the other polling agent of the 1st Respondent at the same polling station by names of Nyakahuma John Bosco bought “ Busera” a local drink
for voters and instructed them to vote for his candidate. Mutambuzi Edison alleged in his affidavit that one Karaachi, a campaign
agent for the 1st Respondent stopped voters from going to vote at Kayogera Trading Centre polling station by bribing them. As stated above in this
judgment the standard of proof in elections is on a balance of probabilities and because an election is set aside by
proving an illegal practice which invariably constitutes a criminal offence . The degree of probability is higher
than in the ordinary civil cases. In the above instances the allegations remain vague. It is not stated in the
case of the meat who received it and how many people received the meat. Like wise who partook of the “bushera”
local drink and who was stopped from voting. In all three cases, the deponents don’t aver as to how they came to know of these
offences of illegal practice. The deponents of these affidavits in which the above allegations are raised being residents of the
same areas from which the victims of the illegal practices are supposed to reside, the deponents ought to have known he identity
of those who benefited from the bribery. Because the deponents failed to give the particulars of those bribed the petitioner has
not proved that these persons perpetrated any offence of ill bribery.
Equally general are the allegations of Julius Kihika Mwirumubi who averred that the LCs at Rugombe Trading Centre were dishing
out money to voters on polling eve and soliciting votes for the 1st Respondent. He further deponed that all the LC members of Bugaaki were involved in his malpractice. No where did Julius Kihika aver
who these LCs who were dishing out money were nor does he state the identity of any of the people arrested by police and who
confessed to dishing out money to voters. Again this nature of evidence of generalization falls far
short of the standard of proof required in an election Petition. I accordingly find that the allegations raised in the
affidavit of Julius Kihika have not been proved.
Tugume Seriverino averred that on polling day Rwanyabuzana who was the campaign agent and LC.II Chairman for Kasaba Parish went to
Kasaba Trading Centre at Mpara polling station in Kyarusozi Sub-County, 300p.m. and bribed Bekunda who was a polling agent for the
Petitioner with Shs. 10,000. Having done this he got two ballot books, ticked them and stuffed them into the ballot box. Gaston
Maliro averred in his affidavit averred that as a coordinator of the Petitioner’s campaign he witnessed widespread
bribery by agents of the 1st Respondent. He had to make a police report against Rwanyabuzana at Nyaruzigati police post under SD Ref 05/02/03/06.
Though much of the affidavit of Gaston Maliro is in general terms, the evidene of Tugume Seriverino is specific. He said Rwanyabuzana
came to the polling station at 300p.m. bribe Bekunda the agent of the Petitioner with Shs. 10,000/= Gaston
Maliro did not passively observe Rwanyabuzana perpetrate the illegal practice. He opted to report the matter under SD Ref 05/02/03/06
. Though Rwanyabuzana denied committing the illegal practice and electoral offence of bribery and having been reported
to the police, I find he did commit the offence. I am convinced of this if the great detail given by Tugume Seriverino
of how the bribery was committed. He gave the place where the offence was committed as the polling station, the
person bribed as Bekunda and a polling agent of the Petitioner and the consideration was Shs. 10,000 to condone
ballot box stuffing. I also find that Rwanyabuzana had a case against him reported at the police as evidenced by the Annexture
to the affidavit of AIP Ogwal Michael.
I now proceed to examine the allegations of bribery leveled against a number of people by Patrick Karugaba, the deponent of affidavit
73 in support of the Petition averred that he was given Shs. 20,000 by Emmanuel Tumusiime the Chief Campaign Manager of the Respondent
to hire, a motorcycle to cover Kijongobya, Kisagazi, Ruteerwa and Kamutuumi polling stations. He also used the same motor cycle to
transport voters to polling stations. He also used the same motor cycle to transport voters to polling stations to vote for
the 1st Respondent. He confessed to having received Shs. 20,000 from Jane Mwesige the 1st Respondent’s polling agent to bribe the polling agent of the Petitioner at Kijongobya Polling
Station who had been too strict against cheating. He deponed that after this transaction the Presiding Officer ticked
150 1st Respondent and stuffed them into the ballot box. At the instance of Emmanuel Tumusiime and with money given to him by
the said Tumusiime he bribed the Presiding officer at Kasagazi polling station one Katusabe Christopher, one of
the polling agents of the Petitioner, one Mugabo Michael and also gave money to each of the two Polling agents
of the 1st Respondent.
Lastly Karugaba confessed to having bribed the Petitioner’s polling agent one Kabasinguzi
Agnes at Kamutuumi Polling station and a polling assistant called Kabyanga. These allegations by Karugaba Patrick are
denied by Emmanuel Tumusiime , Kabyanga and Sam Magezi.
I have carefully considered the evidence for the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent in this regard. I found the evidence of Karugaba to be very precise in detail in that he describes
the places where the bribery took place, the time and the amount of money paid as an inducement. The person who
provided the money in every case and the names of the persons to whom the money was paid. This is as opposed to the general denials
by the 1st Respondent and his witnesses. I also believe that Karugaba was indeed working in the camp of the 1st Respondent who was the official candidate of NRM to party. There appears to be no evidence adduced to oppose his averments
to that effect. One other reason I found very compelling to believe the evidence of Karugaba Patrick is the fact that he confessed
to having committed the offence of the illegal practice if bribery which has penal sanctions. If he was not telling the
truth Karugaba Patrick could not have implicated himself. He was just coming to terms with his conscience. He stood to
gain nothing by implicating himself. For these reasons . I consider the denials of Emmanuel Tumusiime
alias Brown , Kabyanga and Jane Mwesige to be that of his attitude proves the truth of what Oder JSC
as he then was stated in Election Petition 1/2001 (Ret) Col. Dr. Besigye Vs. Kaguta Yoweri Museveni at page 204:-
“ There is no way a witness who is alleged to have committed a criminal offence or malpractice
in a personal capacity is going to own such an accusation. This part of behaviour applies to all human beings.
This is common knowledge for which proof is unnecessary”
For the above reasons I find that Emmanuel Tumusiime and Karugaba Patrick committed the offence of
illegal practice of bribery Contrary to Section 147 (1) of the Local Government Act.
With regard to the allegation of the 1st Respondent having committed the offence of bribery Contrary to Section 147 (4) of the Local Government Act, the Petitioner
appears to rely on the affidavit of Ajuna Apollo Kasangaki . This is to the effect that the 1st Respondent bought for a group of people including the deponent a three litre jerrycan of local potent
gin popularly known as “ kicooli” at Kikara’s bar at Rwaitengya Trading Centre on polling day.
The 1st Respondent disputes allegation in his affidavit 145 dated 21/8/2006. This is a case where there is only the word of the
witness against that of the 1st Respondent. Ajuna Apollo Kasangaki has not been particularly helpful in his affidavit evidence by not stating the persons
or some of the persons he was with in Kikara’s bar when the 1st Respondent procured the drink. Though there is other independent evidence to the effect that the 1st Respondent could have entered Kikara’s bar, the Petitioner has in my view failed
to prove that the 1st Respondent procured alcohol on polling day to people as alleged.
Having found that Karugaba Patrick and Emmanuel Tumusiime committed the illegal practice of the offence of
bribery it remains now to be decided if the illegal practice was committed with the consent , knowledge and approval
of the 1st Respondent. Karugaba Patrick in his affidavit averred that he supported the 1st Respondent on party grounds in that the latter was the NRMO flag bearer. Though counsel for the 1st Respondent suggested that Karugaba Patrick must have been a supporter of the Petitioner, Rwobuzizi Tarsis who swore affidavit
64 in support of the answer to the Petition by the 1st Respondent categorically stated that Karugaba Patrick was the District Youth Representative for the National Resistance
Movement Organisation and an agent of the 1st Respondent . All the evidence therefore proves and I do find that Karugaba Patrick was indeed an agent of the 1st Respondent.
As for Emmanuel Tumusiime alias Brown, Karugaba Patrick describes him as the L.C.III Chairperson Mpara Sub-County
and the Chief Campaign Manager. This is denied by both the 1st Respondent and Emmanuel Tumusiime himself. However from the description of his activities at various polling stations
by Karugaba Patrick, I find that he by conduct acted as an agent of the 1st Respondent. And as most of the affidavits on behalf of the 1st Respondent and that of the 1st Respondent himself merely deny but don’t distance the 1st Respondent from the activities of Emmanuel Tumusiime alias Brown which I found to have taken place , I find that
he was by conduct the agent of the 1st Respondent . I find in accordance with the discussion above regarding the law of agency that Emmanuel Tumusiime alias Brown
was an agent of the 1st Respondent by recognition and acceptance as to render the 1st Respondent liable for the illegal acts of Karugaba Patrick and Emmanuel Tumusiime alias Brown.
The Petitioner in paragraph 13 of the Petition accuses the 1st Respondent of the illegal practice of the offence of undue influence Contrary to Section 154 of the
Local Government Act. To prove this allegation, the Petitioner relied on affidavits 12, 14, 39, 53, 57, 61, 80, 85 and
59 sworn by Tumusiime, Bwire, Tusiime John , Nyangabyaki, Sam Katusabe, Gaston Maliro, Rutankudira Edward, Omuhereza
Mugume, Kasaija M and John Mary Byaruhanga respectively.
Tumusiime Bwire deponed that when he visited Kajuma Catholic Church polling station in Kyarusozi he found the LCs of the area
had arrested a polling agent of the Petitioner and had been drugged to the Trading Centre and forced to sit down . Because
of protest the polling agent was released but his appointment letter was confiscated. Tusiime John averred
that Busingye Ernesti, the LC.III Chairperson of Kyarusozi Sub-County deployed Busingye Wilson Byaruhanga Edward,
Kamaza Moses, Simon and Bonabana Dolice to stop and threaten people from campaigning for the Petitioner .
He also deponed that on polling day the same Busingye Ernesti deployed Kamuza Moses and Vincent Kateeba to obstruct the
road and prevent the Petitioner’s supporters from voting and the said Busingye Ernesti after casting his vote,
sat at the junction to the polling station and ordered the supporters of the Petitioner to go home without voting. He
also threatened Bafumbira voters with the confiscation of their land and eviction if they voted the Petitioner
and he lost. The evidence of Nyangabyaki is that the L.C.II Movement Chairperson went to the polling station
with a policeman and accused him and the supporters of the Petitioner of belonging to FDC , harassed and ordered them
to leave immediately. He had to abandon the polling station for his own safety. The testimony of Sam Katusabe is to the effect
that the 1st Respondent went to Matiri Polling Station armed with a gun and stated that things had become tough so
he was going back to Kyankwanzi. This same evidence is given by Mwanguhya Joseph and many other witnesses when
the allegation that the 1st Respondent went to a polling station armed was being considered. Gaston Maliro averred that in Kyarusozi Sub-County the supporters
of the Petitioner were harassed and intimidated by LCs. And movement leaders and that the campaign agents
and supporters of the 1st Respondent deployed the army to assist him. Rutakundira Edward stated in his affidavit evidence that Abdallah Kamanyire
the LC.III Chairman Katooke Sub-County who was also the campaign agent for the 1st Respondent went to Katembe polling station at the starting of polling and harassed voters calling them Banyarwanda
and Bafuruki migrants who had come to spoil the country and that they should leave the area. The evidence
of Omuhereza Mugume, a polling assistance at Kazinga polling station was to the effect that Mugisha Stephen a campaign
agent of the 1st Respondent came to the polling station and harrased the polling agents of the Petitioner accusing them of belonging to
FDC. He also accused the agents and the Petitioner of being foreigners in the area and ordered them to leave. Kasaija
a polling agent at Kinogero Iraara polling station in Katooke Sub-county gave evidence that one Tindigwihura jumped
off motor vehicle UG 1117 belonging to Hon. Butiime, chased and assaulted Musiime known supporter of the Petitioner. John Mary Byaruhanga
averred that the agents of the 1ST Respondent and the polling officials abused him because he was making an independent tally at the polling. He singled
out the 1st Respondent ‘s campaign agent one Gamboga Manuel. It was also his evidence that an Administration askali
one Iddi came to the polling station with a gun and grabbed the exercise book he was using for making his independent
The 1st Respondent filed affidavits sworn by Mugisha Stephen, Samwiri Nkirimwani the Movement Chairman Kyarusozi Sub-County and by
himself denying the occurrence of incidents of undue influence as alleged.
Though the allegations of undue influence are denied, it is to be noted that the affidavits the Petitioner relied on to prove the
illegal practice are several and cover diverse polling stations and places. As summaried above
the deponent of each of these affidavits mentions the names and positions of the perpetrator of the illegal practice
alleged. The names of the victim, the place where the malpractice occurred and the effect of the illegal practice
on the victim and members of the public. It is inconceivable that all these witnesses could have framed these people.
The offence of undue influence is committed if one:-
temporal or spiritual injury, damage, harm or loss upon or against any person in order to induce or compel
that person to vote or refrain from voting or on account of that person having voted or refrained from voting;
(b) if that person by abduction, duress or any fraudulent device or contrivance impedes or prevails
upon a voter to either to vote or to refrain from voting ------,
, that he abstracted the Petitioner’s supporters from going to vote, and that he threatened Bafumbira
voters with the confiscation of their land and evicted if they voted for the Petitioner constitute
undue influence within the context of Section 154 (1) of the Local Governments Act. Equally so is the evidence of Gaston
Maliro in Kyarusozi Sub-County supporters of the Petitioner were intimidated by the LCs and movement leaders. That if
Omuhereza Mugume and the other deponents.
From the clarity of the affidavits sworn in support of the Petition and from the sheer number of affidavits
accusing various people of this illegal practice of undue influence, I find that the Petitioner has proved to the required standard
of proof that the 1st Respondent committed the illegal practice of the offence of undue influence indirectly through his agents
and other party officials. While the liability of the 1st Respondent for the acts of his agents is rather straight forward d, what needs to be looked at is his liability for the acts of movement
The election in dispute was under the multipart dispensation as opposed to previous elections held in Uganda under the
Movement system of Governance. Under the latter a candidate stood on his own merit and could derive his support
and election agents from anywhere. Under the multiparty system each candidate is flag bearer of his party or organisation.
The 1st Respondent was the NRMO party and NRM/O Party organisation was under a duty to support the 1st Respondent . The 1st Respondent submitted to the system whereby all party organs supported him and campaigned for him. In other words he endorsed their
agency and therefore he is liable for the acts of the movement leaders during the election period aimed at gaining electoral
victory for the party and the 1st Respondent .
I also find that the 1st Respondent committed the illegal practice of the offence of undue influence personally. I base myself
in this on my earlier finding that he went to Matiri Trading Centre polling station on polling day armed and uttered
words to the effect that “things had become tough and he was going back to Kyankwanzi “ That these words and his state of being armed at a polling station constituted undue
influence is borne out by the evidence that his presence created commotion and the public left the trading centre. I
accordingly find that this ground has been proved on a balance of probabilities.
Having answered issue No. 3, I now go to issue No. I which is whether in Organising and conducting the election there was
failure or non compliance with the electoral laws.
Article 60 of the Constitution creates the Electoral Commission and spells out its composition and tenure. Article 61 of the Constitution
of the Republic of Uganda clause 1 (a) states one of the primary functions of the Electoral Commission to be –
“61 (1) (a) to ensure that regular free and fair elections are held”
The same provision while vesting the Electoral Commission with powers and functions of conducting elections , it at the same time
limits it to ensuring the elections are free and fair. That is the standard set by the constitution whether the
elections are Presidential Parliamentary or Local Government if the Electoral Commission in breach of its constitutional mandate
organises and conducts elections which are not free and fair, such an election is not an election as the Constitutional standard
will not have been met.
Conducting a free and fair election entails providing conditions which enables and empowers a voter to cast his/her vote for the
candidate of his choice on his /her own accord. The voter should be able to cast his vote without any harassment, hinderance,
intimidation or threats. The must also may be not illegal practice of bribery to induce a voter to vote in one way or other. Generally
no fear should be created in the mind of the voter of being victimized after the election.
In achieving this high constitutional standard the Electoral Commission must be honest, competent to conduct elections. The candidates
must be represented at every crucial stage of the election e,g. the nomination, voting and the counting of votes . Free and fair
elections aim at achieving and promoting a free ,just and democratic society as is the aim of the National Objective s and
Directives Principles of State Policy .
The Petitioner contends that the 2nd Respondent failed in its mandate to conduct a fair and free election for the Kyenjojo L.C.V Chairperson. He cited
numerous illegal practices committed by the agents of the 2nd Respondent.
The Petitioner, in his paragraph 7 ( c) of the Petition, alleged that contrary to the principles of transparency enshrined
in section 132 (3) of the Local Government Act and Section 53 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, the Parliamentary Elections
Act, the officials of the 2nd Respondent in particulars, the Assistant Returning Officer of Kyenjojo District , at gun point ejected the Petitioner’s
Representatives out of the Tally centre where the results of the individual polling stations were being received and tallied
and the tallying of the results proceeded thereafter in the absence of the Petitioner’s agents or representatives.
To prove this allegation the Petitioner relied on the affidavit evidence of Friday Clovis, Musinguzi Jonathan and Kabanyomozi
Naome who swore affidavits 2, 160 and 159 in support of the petition. Friday Clovis averred that he was appointed
by the Petitioner as his representative to oversee on his behalf the receiving and tallying of results. He was assisted by
Karamagi Michael, Musiguzi Jonathan, Mwesige Patrick and Kabanyomozi Naome. He deponed that before the tallying commenced
it was agreed between then and the Electoral Commission officials that they would be allowed to study the source, documents
before entering individual results but when the tallying started they were denied the source documents. It is his evidence
by 200 a.m. the petitioner was ahead and it was at this stage that the Assistant Returning officer Joseph Byaruhanga left the
room. On his return Joseph Byaruhanga ordered him and his group to leave the tally room. They were
ejected by police men at gun point.
Musinguzi Jonathan deponed that the tallying proceeded well until 200a.m. when Joseph Byaruhanga made calls and when advised Radio
West to announce that the tallying was over and the 1st Respondent had won. When he and his colleagues protested Byaruhanga Joseph ordered them to be ejected from the tally
room by two men one of whom was armed with a pistol. And on coming out he saw the building in which the tally room was
well surrounded by police and army . Kabanyomozi gave evidence identical in substance.
Joseph Byaruhanga swore affidavit 142 in support of the 1st Respondent’s answer to the Petition but swore none in support of the case of his principal, the Electoral commission.
In the affidavit he swore, he denied the allegations leveled against him by the evidence for the Petitioner. The 1st Respondent had won. When he and his colleagues protested Byaruhanga Joseph ordered them to be ejected from the tally
room and they were accordingly ejected by two men one of whom was armed with a pistol.
He further averred that on coming out they found the building that housed the tally room had been surrounded by police and
the army. Naome Kabanyomozi gave identical evidence in substance to the above.
The 2nd Respondent did not file an affidavit in reply to the above evidence Joseph Byaruhanga, the Assistant Returning Officer
Kyenjojo and therefore the agent of the 2nd Respondent strongly swore an affidavit in support of the answer of the 1st Respondents to the Petition. I found this form of pleading rather strange because the cases of the 1st and 2nd Respondent are independent of each other. One can fail while the other could succeed and therefore
each of them need evidence in its support. In paragraph 8 of the 2nd Respondent’s answer to the petition, he denies the allegations in paragraph 7 ( c ) implicating Byaruhanga Joseph in
general terms . Friday Clovis, Musinguzi Jonathan and Kabanyomozi they swore affidavits implicating him as the agent of the
2nd Respondent who opts to keep quiet and produce no evidence in defence of its case. It is trite that if a party files no affidavits
to contradict what the other party has deponed to, the inference to draw is that the facts raised are unchallenged and
are to be presumed to be the truth.
Nothwithstanding that the evidence adduced for the Petitioner is unchallenged, Mr. Mwene Kahima, learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent submitted that the affidavit evidence of the witness was contradictory. He pointed out that whereas Musinguzi Jonathan
and Kabanyomozi Naome deponed that they were ejected by two men in civilian clothes, Friday Clovis averred that they were chased
by policemen. I am of the view that that discrepancy does not go to the root of the matter which is that the agents of the Petitioner
were sent out of the tally room and the tallying went on in the absence of the representatives of the Petitioner. I believe the evidence
that the agents of the Petitioner were ejected and tallying of votes continued in their absence an act which contravened the principles
of transparency enshrined in Section 132 (3), if the Local Government Act and in Article 68 (3) of the Constitution. Counsel also
submitted that the margin Friday Clovis said the margin by which the Petitioner was leading in the election at 200a.m. at the time
of tallying in his oral evidence was different from what he deponed to in the affidavit. I don’t find that discrepancy major
as to impeach the credibility of that witness as what really is in issue is whether the Representatives of the Petitioner were about
during the tally. In the result I find that the 2nd Respondent breached. The principles of fairness and transparency in the election of the L.C.V Chairperson of Kyenjojo District.
In paragraph 7 (a) of the Petition it is alleged that contrary to Section 12 (1) (b) and ( c) of the Electoral Commission Act, the
2nd Respondent failed to control the distribution and use of ballot books and boxes to eligible voters, which resulted in the said ballot
boxes and books falling in the unauthorised possession by agents and supporters of the 1st Respondent who used them to commit election offences such as multiple voting and ballot stuffing.
The evidence in proof of this allegation brought by the Petitioner is to be found in affidavits 3, 16, 22, 34, and 101 in support
of the Petition sworn by Tibahwa Stephen, Isoke Mohammed, Kaija Morris, Kyamanywa and Kadebu Beatrice. Tibahwa Stephen deponed that
on polling day one Muganga a movement mobiliser and a campaign agent for the 1st Respondent ferrying a ballot box on his motor bike. When he met the said Muganga next at Katooke Trading Centre, the ballot box was
no longer with him. He averred further that a day after the polls he visited his uncle Expedito Kyaligonza at Mwaro village and saw
two ballot boxes the type used in the District Chairperson’s election in his house in the sitting room. His uncle was a campaign
agent for the 1st Respondent. The evidence of Isoke Mohamed is that soon after the election he visited Expedito Kyaligonza at Mwaro who was a supporter
of the 1st Respondent. The said Expedito openly boasted of how their camp had cheated the election. To prove his point Expedito Kyaligonza
displayed two ballot boxes which were in his sitting room. He identified the ballot boxes as the transparent types which were used
during the Presidential and District Chairperson Elections. In this regard Kaija Morris deponed that he saw the vehicle of Mugisa
Robert alias Mugisa Sankei parked at Kyarusozi infront of the premises of Aliganyira the L.C.I Chairman. Mugisa Sankei, Sam and Aliganyira
carried a ballot box and placed it in Mugisa Sankei’s car and drove with it towards Kyarusozi. He averred that when he followed
the vehicle to the Senior Secondary School he saw a motor vehicle Reg. No. UG 1177W in which was Hon. Tom Butiime, the 1st Respondnet and the driver. It is further his evidence that he then saw Sam Mugisa alias Sankei transfer the ballot box from the premises
of Aliganyira into Motor vehicle UG 1177W which then drove off. He averred that on returning to the trading Centre, he found
Mugisa Sankei celebrating and boasting that because of the above the 1st Respondent was going to win the election by a margin of between 5000 – 6000. Kaija Morris deponed that the ballot box he is
talking about is the black metalic type used to seal and forward the results to the Returning Officer after counting votes
at individual polling stations.
Kyamanywa deponed that he received a report of a missing ballot book from a polling agent of the Petitioner one Mrs. Kaswara at Humura
polling station. A polling assistant confirmed to him that when a ballot box was opened at the start of voting, the seals of the
ballot book was missing. Incident was reported to the Police under SD/18/02/03/2006. Kyamanywa also testified that he received a
similar report from one Kesi Kaliisa in Kakabara which he forwarded to the police and advised the concerned agent to notify the District
Lastly Kadebu Beatrice gave affidavit evidence that she reported to Mwaro polling station on polling day at 7.30a.m. to find the
ballot box half full though voters had not started to come to vote. He also averred that the Katooke Sub-County movement Chairperson
went to the polling station, was given more than 4 ballot papers which he cast in the view of everyone else.
The second Respondent just like in the case of the allegations in paragraph 7 ( c) of the Petition did not file an affidavit in support
of his answer though the allegations are denied by the affidavits of Hon. Butiime and other deponents who swore affidavits in support
of the Answer of the 1st Respondent to the Petition.
On the whole Mr. Mwene Kahima resorted to questioning the capacity and efficiency on the basis that they were sworn by deponents
who are stated to be both literate and illiterate.
Mr. Musana submitted that the evidence on record showed the illegal practices took place in that a person who is not involved in
the electoral process was seen carrying a box and another person is found in possession of two ballot boxes in his house. The incident
involving Hon. Butiime and the 1st Respondent is also true and proved, Mr. Musana submitted because the same Hon. Butiime who stated on oath that after voting he went
back to Kampala was seen in the company of the 1st Respondent ferrying a ballot box. According to the affidavit of Ogwal Michael Hon. Butiime reported a criminal case that evening
at the police.
Though the fact that the second Respondent filed no affidavit in reply leads to the evidence of the witnesses for the Petitioner
unchallenged, the evidence of these same witnesses is very compelling on its own merits. I find the Petitioner has proved the allegation
that the 2nd Respondent failed to control electoral materials has been proved on a balance of probabilities. This illegal practice has agency
of election officials.
Again contrary to the principles of freedom and fairness it is alleged in the Petition in paragraph 7 ( b) (ii) of the Petition that
Presiding Officers coerced polling agents to sign Declaration of Results Forms in blank before the end of voting at many polling
stations in particular at Kyabulyezibwa, Nyaburara, Kibale Trading Centre, Kyembogo, Twabuurro and Isanga Nursery School.
To prove this illegal practice the Petitioner relied on affidavits 4, 33, 44, 119, 156, 59, 72, 92 and 70 sworn in support of the
Petition by Rukanyangira Amos , Byaruhanga Richard, Bukenya Richard, Irumba Bashir,Kazooba Wilfred, John Mary Byaruhanga and Julius
Kihika, Mwirumubi respectively. In each and every one of these affidavits the deponents who are all polling agents of the Petitioner
deponed that the Presiding Officers in the respective polling stations either tricked, coerced or forced them to sign the Results
Declaration Forms blank before the close of voting. Rukanyangira Amos averred that the Presiding officer of Nyaburara polling station
Kyakuha Jackson ordered him and Tweheyo Samwiri who was his fellow polling agent to sign the Declaration of Results forms in black
before the close of polling. Byaruhanga Richard deponed that the Presiding Officer at Ngangi Church polling station tricked him and
Buhurya Richard into signing the Declaration of results forms in blank before the close of polling. The other deponents aver
to the same illegal practice except that the incident in each case occurred at a different polling station involving a different
presiding officer. The 2nd Respondent as already observed earlier did not file any affidavits in support of its answer to the Petition in which he denied all
illegal practices. What is on record is a number of affidavits filed and sworn in support of the answer of the 1st Respondent to the Petition which cannot serve to support the case of the 2nd Respondent. In the circumstances as the averments by the above deponents are not at all challenged by affidavits in reply, they are
taken as the truth. The Petitioner has accordingly proved on a balance of probabilities that the Presiding Officers at many polling
stations caused Declaration of Results Forms to be signed in blank before the close of voting contrary to the principles enshrined
in Article 61 (1) (a) of the Constitution and Section 12 (1) (e) of the Electoral Commission Act.
It is alleged in paragraph 7 (b) (vi) of the Petition that many election officials like Presiding Officers allowed unauthorised
persons to vote, pre-ticking of voters registers and ballot stuffing and alteration and false declaration of results and multiple
voting. Evidence of this allegation is to be found in the affidavits 5, 8, 15, 29, 35, 30, 46, 51, 73, 76, 82, 84, 98, 101, 18, 37,
45, 50, 59, 73, 75, 77 and 99 in support of the Petition sworn by Asiimwe Robert, Habomugisha H., Tugume Siriverino, Nkurunziza Bernard,
Mucunguzi Richard, Byaruhanga Godfrey, Aliganyira Godfrey, Kato Robert, Kanyamuzi John, Karugaba Patrick, Kurabiraho Charles, Mugarura
Moses, Byaruhanga Beatrice, Tweheyo Samwiri, Morning Charles, Rwambale Elijah, John Maru Byaruhanga, Simon Rumuhuga, January Vincent
and Kawesa Edward respectively. In these affidavits the deponents aver to pre-ticking of the register, multiple voting, unauthorised
voting by Presiding officers and other unauthorised persons, ballot stuffing and alteration and false declaration of results. The
second Respondent filed no affidavits contradicting these allegations. I find therefore that the Petitioner has proved these incidents
of illegal practice on the part of election officials and partly on the part of Presiding Officers to the requisite standard of proof.
In paragraph 7 (b) (1) of the Petition the Petitioner alleges that the Presiding Officers acting in concert with agents and supporters
of the 1st Respondent voted for illiterate and blind voters. In proof of this allegation the Petitioner relied on affidavits 11, 32, 1, 25,
9 and 30 sworn by Alinaitwe Wilber, Kutegeka Archangel, Byamugisha P. George Aheebwa, Kisaija Pauson and Aliganyira Godfrey respectively
in support of the Petition. Alinaitwe Wilber deponed that Bogere Gerald of Kigoyera Trading Centre polling Station personally voted
for illiterates. The evidence of Kutegeka Archangel is that the Presiding Officer at Karambi polling station in Kasule polling
Station instead allowed the agents of the 1st Respondent to vote for illiterates instead of advising the later to choose who was to vote for them. Byamugisha averred that the
Presiding Officer of Kigoyera parish Hall polling station allowed the Kigoyera Parish Chief one Kasangaki to vote for illiterates
while according to the affidavit of Aheebwa George the Presiding Officer of Bwahuurro Polling Station Ruhweza Mathias voted
personally for illiterates. This affidavits were not contested and are therefore taken as the truth. Even on their own merits they
give compelling evidence that the concerned Presiding officers took it upon themselves to vote or to allow other persons to
vote for illiterates contrary to Section 129 of the Local Government Act. I find this allegation of illegal practice to have
been proved on the requisite standard.
All in all I find that the electoral process in his election was riddled with numerous instances of non compliance with the electoral
laws like failure to control the use and distribution of electoral materials, bias and impartiality on the part of the electoral
officials, pre-ticking of registers and ballot stuffing by and with the tacit consent of the electoral officials and
the exclusion of the Representatives of the Petitioner from the tallying exercise which is a very crucial stage of an election. I
answer the first issue in the affirmative and find that in organising and conducting the election there was failure and non-compliance
with the electoral laws.
submitted that the election now in issue failed to meet the standard of a free and fair election as set out in the case of
Winnie Babihuga Vrs. Masiko Winifred Komuhangi & 2 others Election Petition 4/2001 where Musoke Kibuka J said:-
Mr. Musana submitted that if this election is subjected to both the qualitative and quantitative tests the conclusion arrived at
will be that the non compliance with the electoral laws affected the election result in a substantial manner. He argued that if the
quantitative test is applied to this election the effect of the serious illegal practices including ballot stuffing in favour
of the 1st Respondent, vote tallying in the absence of the Petitioner’s agents leaving Presiding Officers to do what they pleased including
unabsurd result showing that 477 out of 478 registered voters voted the vote difference of 5158 between the 1st Respondent and the Petitioner would have disappeared. He also pointed out that things to consider when applying this test would be
the evidence of vote stuffing in 22 polling stations, cases of pre-ticking of votes. Counsel submitted that with the above relying
on the quantitative test the Petitioner has proved that the malpractices affected the results in a substantial manner.
With regard to the qualitative test counsel submitted that irregularities in 60 polling stations have been highlighted. He contended
that there was widespread rigging intimidation, ballot stuffing. The Petitioners agents were chased away from polling stations, forms
were filled in blanks. There was irregular voting for illiterates and the 2nd Respondent failed to control electoral materials. He described the election a sham. For the proposition that the difference of 5158
between the candidates is not too large, Mr. Musana cited Musinguzi Garuga Vrs. Amama Mbabazi (supra) where the vote difference was 13000 and yet court after considering the anormally of the irregularities and malpractices decided
the case in favour of the Petitioner. Mr. Musana submitted that this case passes both tests and prayed that this Court finds that
the non-compliance with the electoral laws affected the results in a substantial manner.
Mr. Patrick Mugisha submitted that the allegations of illegal practices and electoral officers have not been proved more so because
the deponents of most of the affidavits as the subject had no capacity to answer them. On the irregularities Counsel submitted that
whether the qualitative test or quantitative test is applied, the irregularities proved could not affect the final result of the
election in a substantial manner. He argued that the case of Winnie Babihuga Vrs. Winnie Matsiko Komuhangi & 2 others is not applicable here because the facts and circumstances of the two cases are different. In the case of Winnie Babibuha
over 52% of the Constituency was challenged with serious complaints of election malpractices, whereas in this case, only 60 polling
stations out of a total 260 had any complaints. He contended that even of these 60 complaints not all of them would lend to the annulment
of the election. He argued that in all the complaints of bribery and intimidation etc the 1st Respondent has not been personally implicated nor has it been shown that such acts were done with his knowledge or consent
and approval. Mr. Mugisha submitted that the Petitioner cannot agree that the declaration of Results Forms were improperly signed
when they were signed by his agents nor can he complain of the election results when he conducted an independent tally by which he
lost. Counsel contended that in the above circumstances the Petitioner was caught by the doctrine of election.
Mr. Mwene Kahima, learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent submitted that the Petitioner failed to prove against the 2nd Respondent any of the allegation on the Petition because the affidavits in support of those allegations had been sworn by persons
who had no capacity to swear them. He also argued that the other affidavits which were filed later than the Petition itself were
barred by law and out of time as they contained fresh grounds.
Before going into the merits of the 2nd issue I must state that the issue of affidavits raised by Mr. Mwene Kahima has already been exhaustively discussed above in this
judgment. I don’t therefore propose to revert to it.
In determining whether irregularities in the electoral process and contravention of the electoral laws in an election affected the
results on a substantial manner leading to it being set aside the courts use two tests namely:-
Under the qualitative test the margin between the votes of the winning candidate and those of the losing candidate in the light of
the votes that were affected by the irregularities in and the non compliance with the electoral laws . If it is found that
were it not that there was non compliance with the electoral laws the margin between the two protagonists would have been substantially
reduced or even that the losing candidate would have won the election petition is said to have passed the test in that the result
of the election would have been substantially affected.
The qualitative test examines the quality and conditions under which the election was conducted. If the election was held in a fair
and free atmosphere and represented the will and choice of the people, such an election passes the qualitative test. But an
election will invariably fail the qualitative test if it is held contrary to the principles of fairness and in contravention of the
electoral laws will it have failed the qualitative test. An election marred by fear, theft, unfairness, violence, cheating
and criminal acts must fail the qualitative test.
In the instant case the margin between the 1st Respondent who was declared the winner of the election and the Petitioner was 5158 votes. To pass the quantitative test the Petitioner
needs to show that if the irregularities in the electoral process and the non compliance with the electoral law had not been perpetrated
the margin that divided him and the 1st Respondent would have been drastically reduced or non existent or that he would have won the election.
In the instant case, there are a few witnesses like Karugaba Patrick, the deponent of affidavit 73 in support of the Petition who
stated the exact number of votes that were cast in favour of the 1st Respondent directly as a result of the illegal practices of the offences of bribery, ballot stuffing, undue influence and other malpractices.
Those votes if all added up don’t reach 2000.
The vast majority of votes the Petitioner complained of were those resulting from ballot stuffing , pre-ticking of the register,
multiple voting and things like that. In most of these cases the deponents who testified to these abuses did not state the number
of ballot papers were stuffed into ballot boxes, how many of the votes were in favour of the 1st Respondent even in the cases of multiple voting. As no numbers are testified to it is difficult to say because of these malpractices
the margin between the two candidates would be reduced by a particular margin.
With regard to the qualitative test I have made various findings regarding the quality of the election. Credible evidence was adduced
of the 1st Respondent using the official LC.V Chairperson’s vehicle during the campaigns and on election day. I also found that
contrary to Section 42 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, he went to Matiri Trading Centre polling station armed with a gun and
that by being armed at a polling station this constituted the offence of undue influence contrary to Section 154 of the Local Governments
Act. The Petitioner was not represented at the tallying exercise which is a very crucial stage in an election. This was not
because his representatives opted out but because they were ejected from the tally room or centre by an electoral official, contrary
to the principle of fairness. On various pretexes many presiding officers caused polling agents of the Petitioner to sign Declaration
of Results Forms in blank and at least two cases the agents of the 2nd Respondent allowed electoral materials – ballot boxes to fall into the hands of unauthorised person.
Though these illegal practices affected the quality of the election, I don’t find them to have been so pervasing as to have
affected the result of the election in a substantial manner. I agree with Mr. Patrick Mugisha that the abuses complained of took
place in less than a
All in all, the second issue is answered in the negative as the Petition has not passed both the qualitative and quantitative test.
1. That the 1st Respondent was not validly elected as the District Chairperson of Kyenjojo District.
3. Alternatively that the election Results for the District be set aside and a new election be held.
4. That new and impartial Returning and Polling Officials should conduct the new election.
Mr. Musana repeated these prayers and additionally prayed that a Certificate for two Counsel considering the intricate and complex
nature of these proceedings Mr. Patrick Mugisha asked for a certificate for three Counsel for the same reasons.
During the final submissions prayer No. 2 that the Petitioner be declared the validly elected Chairperson of Kyenjojo District was
abandoned. This was rightly done as the Court would rather that the people representative be chosen in a free and fair election.
Prayer No. 3 is that the election by which the 1st Respondent was elected Chairperson of Kyenjojo District be set aside. Grounds upon which a Local Government election may be set aside
are to be found in Section 139 of the Local Government’s Act. In the context of the present Petition the relevant subsection
is 139 ( c) which provides as follows:-
grounds if proved to the satisfaction of the Court-
or with his or her knowledge and consent or approval.”
or electoral offence personally or that such an illegal practice was committed with his consent or knowledge and approval. In this
judgment I have found that the 1st Respondent personally committed illegal practices contrary to Section 42 of the Parliamentary Elections Act in that he went
to a polling station armed, Contrary to Section 126 in that he used a Government facility to conduct his campaign and that by the
act of going to a polling station armed and uttering the words “ Things have become tough, I am going back to Kyankwanzi”
or words to that effect he committed the electoral offence of undue influence. I also found that some of the illegal practices committed
by his agents and by National Resistance Movement Party leaders were with his implicit consent or knowledge and approval. For the
above reasons I hereby set aside the election for the Kyenjojo District Chairperson held on the 2/3/2006 and order the holding of
fresh elections. Consequent up setting aside the said election I declare that the 1st Respondent was not validly elected the Chairperson Kyenjojo District and declare that post vacant. I direct that the new election
be organised and conducted by electoral officials other than these who were in charge of the previous one who have given
elections and democracy a bad name.
Considering the sheer volume of the case, the complexity of the issues the research undertaken by Counsel and regarding all the electoral
laws of his country, I hereby issue a Certificate for two Counsel for the Petitioner. Had the Petition failed Counsel for the 1st Respondents would have been similarly entitled.
The costs of this Petition shall be borne by the 1st and 2nd Respondent.
Delivered in presence of Mr. Musana – for the Petitioner
Mr. Bwiruka for the 1st Respondent.
1st Respondent and 2nd Respondent present.
Mr. Bwiruka also holding brief for the Counsel for 2nd Respondent Mr. Mwene Kahima.
Ms. Kinjojo Flavia – Assistant District Registrar.
Mr. Mutabazi – Court Clerk.
Mr. Bwiruka:- Under Rule 29 of the Parliamentary Elections Party which are applied by Section 172 of the Local Governments
Act which provides giving oral notice of appeal – on behalf of the 1st and second Respondents against the whole judgment of this Court I pray for the record and judgment for purposes of appeal.
Court:- Oral application giving notice noted.
What remedies if any are available.
BRIBERY UNDUE INFLUENCE ISSUE NO I of the Polling Stations measuring the vast majority of the 260 polling stations had no complaints and proved illegal practices.
UNDUE INFLUENCE ISSUE NO I of the Polling Stations measuring the vast majority of the 260 polling stations had no complaints and proved illegal practices.