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

ARTICLE 126(l) OF THE CONSTITUTION

I have referred to the confusion surrounding the tallying of votes. Dr. Khaminwa, learned Deputy Lead Counsel, for the first respondent, cited to us Article 126(1) of the Constitution and urged us not to interfere with the will of the people: namely that because of these provisions, we should, as serene judges, behave as if nothing wrong has happened because the majority of the people have voted for the first Respondent. On the facts, his arguments should have been that the majority of the people are deemed to have voted for the 1st Respondent.

Clause (1) of Art.126 states as follows:-

“Judicial power is derived from the people and shall be exercised by the courts established under this Constitution in the name of the people and in conformity with law and with the values, norms and aspirations of the people.”

Perhaps I should here mention that the same Constitution contains our Judicial Oath couched in these words:-

“I …swear in the name of the Almighty God/solemnly affirm that I will well and truly exercise the Judicial functions entrusted to me and will do right to all manner of people in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as by law established and in accordance with the Laws and usage of the Republic of Uganda without fear or favour, affection or ill will”

Art. 126 (1) does not restrict this Court in doing justice to parties. We are engaged in a democratic process, namely the exercise of doing justice to the parties in accordance with law. I do not think that the people of this country would want this Court to shut its mind, or eyes, to the breaches of the law because the apparent majority of voters have voted in favour of a particular candidate. I think that the norms and aspirations of the people of Uganda would be served most properly by upholding democratic values, principles and the rule of law under which elections are conducted under conditions of freedom and fairness. I may add, with respect, that if this Court hesitates to say that anybody, whoever if it is, has violated any of the laws of this land, this Court would be inadvertently condoning a conspiracy to destroy democracy and the rule of law.