The republic of uganda in the supreme court of uganda at kampala

1. Voters’ Cards are to be issued to all registered voters whose particulars appear on the Voters Register.

2. Voters whose particulars have been crossed out from the Register during the display must not be issued with Voters’ Cards.

3. All Cards must be signed (thumb print) for in the column marked “CHECKED” on the Register, by the OWNERS on receipt.

4. Voters’ Cards which will not have been issued by the end of the display must be returned to the Commissioner along with the rest of the display materials”

These guidelines in my view were issued under section 26 of Act 3/97.

The evidence I have evaluated under the ground of the Petition under consideration obviously indicates that many Voters’ Cards were not issued in accordance with the guidelines issued by the 2nd Respondent’s Chairperson. Such Voters’ Cards were not received by the owners in person. Under section 26(1) of Act 3/7 it is the 2nd Respondent who designs, controls and issues Voters’ Cards to voters whose names appear in the Voters’ Register. It follows that all Voters’ Cards can be issued out only by the 2nd Respondent or its officials and/or servants mainly Presiding Officers or Polling assistants. The Voters’ Cards which the evidence we have considered show were distributed by persons other than the 2nd Respondent’s officials were in the possession of persons who were not the legal owners of the Cards and were issued out not in accordance with the law.

In the circumstances the 2nd Respondent was liable for the acts of its officials such as Presiding Officers or Polling assistants who issued such Voters’ Cards.

The persons which the evidence shows were in possession of the Voters’ Cards illegally committed offences under section 26(2) and section 28(3) (a) of Act 3/97.

In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Petitioner has proved to the required standard, and I find that:

“Contrary to sections 29(4) and 34 of the Act the 2nd Respondent and its servants/agents, in the course of their duties, allowed people with no valid Voters’ Cards to vote.

I shall consider the effect of this non-compliance on the election together with the effect of other non-compliance later in this judgment.

Paragraph 3(1) (g) and 3(1)(p) - Polling Agents chased away.

“3(11(g) That contrary to the provisions of sections 32 and 47(4) and (5) of the Act on the Polling day during the polling exercise, the Petitioner’s Polling Agents were chased away from many Polling Stations In many Districts of Uganda and as a result the Petitioner’s interests at those Polling Stations could not be safeguarded.”

“3(1) (p). Contrary to section 32 of the Act, the 2nd Respondent’s agent/Servants the presiding Officers failed to prevent the Petitioner’s Polling agents from being chased away from Polling Stations and as a result the Petitioner’s agents were unable to observe and to monitor the voting progress.”

The 2 Respondent answered these allegations as follows

“In reply to paragraph 3(1)(g) and (p) of the Petition, the second Respondent avers that he has knowledge that Polling Stations agents of the Presidential Candidates were chased away by servants or agents of the second Respondents or by any other person as alleged, and that the Petitioner’s agents were free to observe and monitor the voting process.”

The provisions of section 32 of the Act are in the following sub-sections

“(1) A candidate may be present in person or through his or her representatives or Polling Agents at each Polling Station for the purposes of safeguarding the interests of the candidate with regard to the polling process

(2) Not more than two representatives or Polling Agents shall be appointed by a candidate under sub-section (1) and the appointment shall be in writing and presented to the presiding Officers at each Polling Station.