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

Yours Faithfully,

Aziz K. Kasujja
CHAIRMAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION
c.c. The Minister of Internal Affairs
The Minister of State for Security
The Inspector General of Police
All Candidates’ Task Forces.”

There is no evidence that, the 1st Respondent as the incumbent President (also a Presidential Candidate) replied to that letter to say what action he had taken or would take about the problems articulated by the 2nd Respondents Chairman in his letter. In my considered opinion, it would be wrong to think that the 1st Respondent did not receive the letter.

In a letter to the Army Commander and the Inspector General of Police dated 20-02-2001, annexture “P4” the Deputy Chair person of the 2nd Respondent, Mrs. Flora Nkurukenda, informed them that after the Rwaboni incident at Entebbe Airport, the Petitioner had cancelled his campaign trip to Ajumani. It also drew their attention to section 12(1 )(e) and (f) of Act 3/97 and section 20 of the Act and requested them to ensure that candidate’s campaigns continued without unnecessary interference.

In a letter dated 7-3-2001, four Presidential candidates, including the Petitioner, wrote to the Chairman of the 2nd Respondent (Annexture “P 17”to the Petitioner’s affidavit) expressing their concern regarding, inter alia, security, violence and intimidation and other flaws in the electoral process. They said that violence and intimidation by the PPU and para-military personnel had escalated resulting in lasso lives and injury to citizens of Uganda. They also said that public officers such as Army Officers, RDCs, DISCs, GISOs, who were supposed to be non-partisan under the law, continued to campaign for the 1 Respondent. At the end the letter said that in view of the electoral flaws referred to by it, the four candidates demanded that the 2nd Respondent should convene a meeting of all Presidential candidates (not their representatives) not later than 9-3-2001 to resolve those serious and very urgent issues.

On 8-3-2001, the Chairman of the 2nd Respondent replied to the letter of 7-3- 2001, written by the four Presidential Candidates. The reply is annexture “P 18” to the Petitioner’s affidavit. Regarding violence and intimidation the reply said that the 2nd Respondent had written to the Head of State as the Commander — in — Chief of the Armed Forces to contain the Army and to the Inspector General of Police to ensure that the Police carried out their mandate as provided for in article 212 of the Constitution of Uganda. It also said that it was incumbent upon the Police when necessary to seek reinforcement from other state security organs to contain any deteriorating security situation, maintain law and order and protect lives of Ugandans. Regarding campaigning by Army Officers, RDCs, DISOs, and GISO’s, for the 1st Respondent, the letter said that the 2nd Respondent had issued instructions to all concerned to stop the practice. The letter ended that in view of the candidates’ and 2nd Respondent’s last minute activities then taking place a meeting of all Presidential Candidates demanded by the four would not be practicable. The letter was copied to all Presidential Election Candidates.

The documentary evidence I have referred to indicates that the problem of violence and intimidation during the Presidential electoral process was a matter of serious concern to the 2nd Respondent and to at least four Presidential Candidates, including the Petitioner.

The 1st Respondent, as the incumbent President of Uganda was also informed of the problem, but did not respond to indicate what action he had taken or would take to contain violence, intimidation, harassment, etc. by PPU and the military, which he could do as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Evidence also shows that after the appeal of the 2nd Respondent’s Chairman to the President and the Deputy Chair person’s request to the Army Commander and the Inspector General of Police on 20-02-2001, violence and intimidation continued up to polling day and during polling.

I have considered affidavit evidence from 58 witnesses for the Petitioner, adduced to prove intimidation, harassment, threats, violence and torture against the Petitioner’s supporters and agents during the 2001, Presidential Election. I have also considered affidavit evidence in opposition from slightly fewer witnesses from the 1st and 2nd Respondents, intended to prove that the incidents alleged by the Petitioner’s witnesses did not happen. As I have said before in this judgment, there were far more witnesses who gave affidavit evidence than I could evaluate within the time available to me. Nevertheless, I think that the witnesses from all sides whose evidence I have evaluated are enough samples to give an adequate picture of the scenario. Having considered the evidence which I was able to do, I am satisfied and find that:

Before, and after the nomination of candidates, during the campaigns, and up to polling day of the 2001, Presidential Elections, there was a lot of intimidation, harassment, threats of and actual violence and torture against many supporters agents and mobilisers of the Petitioner.