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

CONCLUSIONS ON ISSUE NO.2

On 21/4/2001 in our decision we said that the election was conducted partially in accordance with the principles laid down in the PEA, 2000. We pointed out that:

(a) In some areas of the country, the principle of free and fair election was compromised. In the foregoing discussions on issue two I have indicated areas where this happened. What effect did it have on results? Wait for the third issue.

(b) In special polling stations for soldiers, the principle of transparency was not applied. There is overwhelming evidence of this in barracks or soldiers’ polling stations near barracks of, for instances, Mbarara, Gulu, Kitgum, Mbuya and Soroti. A. Otim’s affidavit, which I have just referred to, illustrates what happened in Gulu. Soldiers had the audacity to get an

APC military vehicle and drive around the polling station obviously to intimidate the agents or monitor of the petitioner because he was protesting. In Mbarara at Kakyeka stadium and Mankeke polling stations the military bulldozed everybody and got both soldiers and school children to vote without any verification whatever. Mr. Ruhinda Ngaruye’s affidavit
shows this. In his affidavit, James Oluka, swore that at AKISIM NRA polling stations, in Soroti, two new more stations were created over night and the petitioner was unable to post agents there. Wives of soldiers of Olilim barracks were taken to polling station where they voted. There was no control or verification of those voters by the agents of the petitioner. Cpl. Oyo James, political commissar in the AKISIM Barracks, in his reply attempted to explain how soldiers from Chum detach were transferred to Soroti and how ballot boxes for these soldiers was sent to Soroti at that time of polling. He stated that there were candidates’ agents and no voters were smuggled in. It is clear from both Olika and Cpl. Oyo that at least one polling station was created over night. I cannot see how the petitioner could have appointed an agent on the same day when the station came into existence. I think Oluka is telling the truth that there was no agent for the petitioner.

There is the affidavit of Hon. J. L. Okello-Okello, M.P, who co-ordinated the petitioner’s election in Kitgum/Pader Districts. To his affidavit is attached a letter signed by 4 polling agents of the petitioner and of candidate Bwengye. The agents listed six ungazetted army polling stations created at Pajimo A, Pajimo B. Ngom Orom FN and Ngom Orom F-N, Ngom Orom (outside barracks and Abondio’s Home II (outside quarter- guard). The agents saw delivery of a one ballot box for Pandwong (outside quarter guard) and for Patika (outside quarter guard). That a further three ballot boxes were also delivered at night intended for Ngom Oromo. The agents wanted the six ballots boxes to be opened to verify their contents. This was not done. The electoral commission’s explanation is not satisfactory. Clearly the principle of transparency was compromised absolutely.

I have already discussed areas outside the barracks where the principle of transparency was breached. Such areas include many polling stations; counting and tallying centres from where the polling agents and representatives for the petitioner were chased. What is the cumulative effect on the election results? We deal with this under the third issue.

(c) We also held that there was evidence that in a significant number of polling stations there was cheating. Glaring examples are in places where soldiers voted. Soldiers just bulldozed their way and that of their dependants in voting. Multiple voting, under age voting, pre-ticking and supervising ticking, so that a voter has no choice on which name to tick. These are examples of cheating. I have referred already to districts like Mbarara, Bushyenyi, Mbale, Tororo, Iganga and Busia. What effect did this have on the election result? I shall answer this in the next issue No.3.

I have no doubt in my mind that on the evidence before me, the principles of free and fair election and of transparency were persistently violated and trampled upon across the country and therefore I must reemphasize our answer to the second issue as being in the affirmative. In very many parts of the country the presidential election was not conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the provisions of the Presidential Elections Act, 2000.