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

MULTIPLE VOTING, POLLING AGENTS ETC.

Again there is evidence about people who voted more than once. This was a breach of S.31 of PEA, 2000. I have considered the evidence given for and against the petitioner. For the same reasoning, which I have just given above, I am unable to accept the evidence in the affidavit of an RDC J. Mwesige of Kabale, CAOs as Returning officers and of the presiding officers whose evidence I have read that the petitioner’s agents and supporters were not harassed or chased away from Polling Stations. There is ample credible evidence, which I believe, that polling agents of the Petitioner were systematically harassed and indeed on the polling day those who were able to go to the stations were chased away from Polling Stations to which they were appointed.

There is evidence that in some cases the agents of the second respondent appear to have just looked on and in some other cases participated. This is clear in Ntungamwo (See Gariyo), Rukungiri (See J. Musinguzi), Kamwenge (See Kiiza D. and M. Tibayendera), Kanungu (See H. Muhwezi), Kabarole (Turyahebwa), Kasese, Pallisa, (Mulindwa and K. Seganyi), Mayuge, Tororo (Imons and Okware S.), Kabale (See Matsiko A. and Arinaitwe W). There is evidence that during voting there was campaigning at or near Polling Stations, in many districts including Mayuge, Kanungu, Kamwenge, in Palisa, in Rukungiri and in Kabale, in Tororo, in favour of the first Respondent. The witnesses I have quoted testify to this fact. Such campaigns at the polling stations on the polling day contravened section 43 and 44 of the PEA, 2000.

There is evidence of ballot stuffing, e.g., in Iganga, see A. Mwanja’s affidavit; Bushenyi (Tukahebwa), in Mbarara, (Mrs. Semambo) and see Kazikazi from Ntugamo. Stuffing was done in some instances by polling officials but in other cases by people claimed to be agents of the first Respondent and in some other cases with the collusion of the election officers who are agents of the second Respondent, e.g., Rwenamira, in Ntungamo District, Sibomana stuffed acquiescence of the presiding officer.

TORORO EXAMPLE OF BALLOT STUFFING, ETC.

At Amoni RS, in Tororo District, Okware witnessed a dramatic situation. A. Obore, an agent of the first Respondent and an LC Ill Chairman, went to the Polling Station at 2.30 p.m. and ordered everybody to disappear. His orders were defied. He pulled out a gun from his car and twice shot in the air. This was on a polling day at a polling station. Many people fled, but election officials stayed. Okware took cover. Obore collected ballot papers from his car and stuffed them into the ballot box. Because of intervention by Okware, an agent of the petitioner1 the police and LC.5 Chairman (Mr. Nabala-Mudanye) came to the scene. Counting and tallying of votes showed there were 40 excess ballot papers which were given to first respondent at the insistence of Obore and Mudanye. Obore was sub-county agent for first Respondent. He has not denied Okware’s claims although he swore rebuttal affidavits. Further Mr. Mudanye the L.C.5 Chairman and the District agent for the first Respondent in his affidavit accepts that there was a disagreement between Obore on one hand and Okware and other youths on the other. L.C.5 Chairman accepts that Okware’s group did not like Obore to be at that polling station. As L.C.5 had brought their policemen he advised Obore to go away. Obore left. The L.C. 5 Chairman, Mr. Mudanye, corroborates Okware in respect to the presence of Obore and police at the polling station and the disagreement between Obore and the Okware group. Further, L.C. 5 Chairman and the police were called to the polling station. Of course the L.C.5 Chairman does not talk about the shooting partly because he arrived after the shooting event. But the L.C.5 Chairman’s story, cautious, though it was, certainly lends considerable credence to what Okware deponed. I have no sound reason not to accept the evidence of Okware that Obore, a Sub- country agent of the first Respondent committed at least two illegal practices on polling day (12/3/2001) at a polling station. First by stuffing the ballot box with ballot papers, Obore voted more than once in contravention of S.31 (I) of PEA. Secondly, Obore bore fire arms while he was at a polling station on the polling day, C/s 42(l) of the same Act. Then the presiding officers contravened S.48 (I) by failing to take the complaints of Okware, the agent of the petitioner. The presiding officer acquiesced in the stuffing offence! Of course the respondent can quip that there were only 40 excess votes. My answer is that this is one station and moreover arising from violent conduct breaching the law.