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

(ii) Kiboga — Hoima

(iii) Arua — Pakwach

(iv) Ntungamo — Rukungiri; and that the tarmacking and upgrading of these roads was part of the 1st Respondent’s campaign.

(e) That at a campaign meeting at Arua on 12th February, 2001, the Respondent offered a gift of money to voters who attended the Rally and a record of this rally was video-recorded, a copy of this recording is herewith submitted.”

Hon. Nasasira, Minister of Works, swore an affidavit in rebuttal of the Petitioner’s affidavit in this connection. The affidavit was filed in court by the 1 Respondent’s counsel during the hearing of this Petition, but at the time of writing this judgment, I was unable to trace the affidavit. However, the essence of the contents of the affidavit as I remember it is that it denied what the Petitioner said in his affidavit in reply concerning road works. It said that road works listed in the Petitioner’s affidavit had long been budgeted for under planned government projects. They were not outside the ordinary course of business of government.

Section 63(1) of the Act provides:

“63(1). Any candidate or agent of a candidate who either before or during an election gives or provides any money, gift or other consideration, to a voter with the intention of inducing the person to vote for him or her commits an illegal practice.”

“Illegal practice” means, according to section 2(1) of the Act, “an act declared to be an illegal practice under part lx of the Act.” Section 63 is under part lx of the Act. The ingredients the Petitioner has to prove 63 are:

(i) that a gift was given to a voter;