| THIRD ISSUE
The third issue is whether if the first and the second issues are answered in the affirmative such noncompliance with the provisions and principles of the said Act, affected the result of the election in a substantial manner.
I have answered both issues one and two in the affirmative. What do these answers lead to? They lead to two questions the answers to which will clear the matter. Did the noncompliance affect or did not affect the result of the election? Second if the answer is yes, I must answer the next important question whether the effect was or was not substantial. I am aware that Parliament did not in its wisdom define what it meant by either “affecting the result” or “in a substantial manner”. I shall indicate what I understand these two expressions to mean in the context of this petition. There are decided cases here in Uganda, and outside, which discuss what is meant by “affecting the result” and or “in a substantial manner”. See for instance, Ojera vs. Returning Officer & Banya (1961) EA 482 [also (1962) EA 532], Hackney’s case vs. Gill vs. Holms (1874) 31 L.T.R.N.S.69 at P.721. I shall return to these later.
Evidence by way of affidavits and documents were filed in support and against the petition by both sides. On the basis of that evidence and the law, submissions on this issue were made by counsel.
Issue number three covers a wide field. I think that to answer the issue satisfactorily calls for an evaluation of the situation before the election, that is to say, during the campaign period first. Secondly I think that it is equally essential to evaluate the evidence relating to the voting day activities on 12/3/2001.
I have already stated that perusal of many affidavits and the letters between Chairman Kasujja and the candidates (especially the Petitioner) show that the complaints about the campaign problems1 such as harassment, violence, intimidation, beating, insecurity, impropriety characterised the campaign period up to and including the voting day.
Dostları ilə paylaş: | 
