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

A few blank Cards were mistakenly issued to some Polling Stations. These should have been returned to the Commission and appropriate ones issued.

It should be pointed out that these Cards are to be used for the Presidential Elections only.

The Electoral Commission could not invest a lot of money in them by way of quality.
However, they have sufficient security features to allow for detection of any imitations.
Holders of suspected fake Cards should be reported to the authorities.

Various factors are considered when creating Polling Stations. Should these factors change, new Polling Stations may be created or existing one could be closed. The Commission relies very much on the input from the field. It would have been helpful if you had indicated specific names of Polling Stations affected so that remedial action is taken or reasons are given for their being degazetted if at all.

The mater of the intruders into our Data Processing Centre is being handled by the Police. We wish nevertheless to assure you that our data was not damaged, tampered with or corrupted.
With regard to Army Officers, RDCs, DISOs, and GISOs campaigning for certain Candidates, the Commission issued instructions to all those concerned to stop the practice. The Commission will be grateful to receive specific names and places of persons still engaging in this practice so that appropriate action can be taken.

I am sure the issues you have raised have been satisfactorily answered and in view of the Candidates’ and Commission’s last minute activities currently going on, the meeting of all Presidential Candidates demanded for will not be practicable.

A. K. Kasujja,
CHAIRMAN,
ELECTORAL COMMISSIQN.

c.c. The Commander in Chief of the Uganda Armed Forces.

The Inspector General of Police.

Mr. Y. K. Museveni,

Presidential Candidate, 2001”.

Mr. A. Awori,

Presidential Candidate, 2001.

Mr. F. W. Bwengye,

Presidential Candidate, 2001.”

These letters are clearly part of the evidence showing that the Commission was not in command of the electoral process. The chairman avoided convening a meeting of all candidates at that critical moment to discuss problems raised by the Petitioner and some of the other candidates. This refusal was unwise whatever the reasons for the refusal. I think that by this refusal to hold candidates meeting, the Commission dealt a blow to transparency.

As late as 10/312001, Chairman Hajji Kasujja briefed International observers (see Annex 6 to Dr. Mukasa’s affidavit sworn on 1/4/2001). Chairman Hajji Kassujja referred to many things during his briefing. He admitted violence during the campaign. He avoided mentioning the culprits. He admitted appealing to the first Respondent as Head of State to restrain security forces from perpetuating violence and intimidation. He had difficulty in updating registers.

I have studied the affidavits of many witnesses for the petitioner and for the Respondents including Haji Kasujja and the other witnesses of the Respondents, e.g., Major General Jeje Odongo, Lt. Col. Mayombo, Moses Byaruhanga (Secretary to NIF), Captain Rwakitatare, Major Kakooza-Mutale, RDC Naava-Nabagesera, Munyani Naabya, Moses Muhairwa, Mudabi Emmanuel, Kakuba Nachan, Muhamad Masaba, Capt. Ndahura, Mrs. Jackline Mbabazi, and RDC James Mwesigye. Some of these witnesses are RDC, (Nabagesera and Mwesigye); CAOs, (Kakuba) or members of UPDF (Major Gen. Odongo) or PPU (Captain Ndahura). As the contents of the chairman’s letter (supra) show, UPDF officers, RDCs were seen as partisan during the campaign and their partiality towards the Petitioner was known. Accordingly I prefer the story told by the side of the Petitioner to that of the respondents.

The lamentations of Chairman Haji Kasujja contained in his letter EC/25 dated 24th February 2001 addressed to the First Respondent speak volumes. It shows that certainly either his agents or the first Respondent did not respect the rules of the election. This is strange because participants in a democratic election prescribed by the constitution have to obey those rules. I find that there was systematic, if not orchestrated, intimidation, harassment of petitioner and his agents and interference with electioneering or campaigns of the Petitioner personally and his agents and supporters. I believe that this was not accidental. This was contrary to the provisions of S.25, 28, 32, 47(4) & (5) 70, 71, 74 of the Presidential Elections Act, 2000. This was non-compliance with the provisions of the Act. These discussions and conclusions dispose of the first issue, really.

I have heard submissions that this could not or did not affect results. I disagree completely and I shall give more reasons later. Suffice is to say here that persistent harassment and taunting and beating of campaign agents of the Petitioner demoralised and degraded both the Petitioner, his agents and or supporters. The arrest of such high-ranking person as Rabwoni, the youth and students leader must have had devastating effect on the youths he led. It must have had profound psychological impact. The torture of Masiko B, Kanyabitabo, Byaruhanga speaks of this consequence.