| The Presidential Protection Unit (PPU) has also been deployed in different parts of the country even where the security situation does not warrant it.”
After commenting on the letter the Chairman had written to the President, the candidates concluded:
“Violence and intimidation by the PPU and para-military personnel has escalated of late and has resulted in loss of lives and injury to citizens of this country.”
However, the only evidence the Court received on deployment of PPU, was in respect of the deployment in Rukungiri only. And the Court received evidence in proof of only one loss of life, namely that of Baronda, the letter of Louis Otika not being such proof.
In a reply dated 8th, March, 2001, Chairman Kasujja summarised, under the same sub-title the steps the Commission had taken through correspondence. He concluded:
“Following these communications, reports from the Police indicate that the security situation during the campaigns has improved and acts of violence and Intimidation have reduced considerably country wide.”
The candidates replied 9th March demanding that the deployed army be withdrawn within 24 hours or else they take drastic action, and warning that “the Commission will bear the consequences of the confusion that may arise out of deploying different security organs.”
That correspondence left a very serious unanswered question in my mind; namely was there more widespread violence and intimidation (including more deaths), related to the election, than was disclosed in evidence, or were the contents of the correspondence, an exaggerated expression of the extent of the violence and intimidation? Needless to say, however, that whatever the answer to this question may be, this Court could only act on the evidence before it.
Dostları ilə paylaş: | 
