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

“(3) That I am the Director of Research and Policy Development at the Uganda AIDS Commission.


(4) That I co-ordinate all AIDS related biomedical and social research in the Country involving the gathering of research results and related in formation for dissemination for the purpose of policy development and further research in H/V/AIDS prevention, care and support. I am involved in the development of research guideline, approaches, standards and plans.


(5) That I am very conversant with the research results pertaining to both medical and social aspects of AIDS and on the basis of such research and information I state as follows:

There was no affidavit sworn in rebuttal of what he stated in his affidavit. However, what is clear is that the respondent’s statement appears to be consistent with
the concept of Community Diagnosis of AIDS which is based on community perceptions, beliefs and observations concerning HI VIA IDS as deponed to by Prof. Rwomushana.”


In my opinion, in determining whether the 1^st respondent acted honestly, we must take into account, the presence or absence of reasonable belief on which he based his statement. His evidence shows that he based it on reasonable belief that the petitioner’s woman Judith Bitwire, with whom he had cohabited and the child they had had together had both died of AIDS. In addition to the above, he stated that the petitioner’s bodily appearance bore a strong resemblance of AIDS victims he had observed in the past.

In my view, I think that for the 1St respondent to be held guilty of the statement he made, it must be shown that he acted falsely and without any honest belief in the statement being true. It is settled and I agree with the decision in Wilson vinyanci (supra) and YounghusbandvLufting (supra) that he does not commit an offence if he honestly believed that he was within his rights to state as he did. In other words, the question was whether he acted bona tide in describing the petitioner to be a victim of AIDS.

On whether the statement had the effect of promoting the election of the respondent in preference to petitioner and whether voters were scared to vote for the petitioner, I must state that the petitioner never called evidence to prove that voters got scared and refrained from voting for the petitioner because of being a victim of AIDS. However, on whether the statement had the effect of promoting the election of the 1st respondent in preference to petitioner, I must state that the statement as it appeared in the Time Magazine does not appear to have had that connotation. However, on 11th March 2001 the 1^st respondent explained to all journalist and reporters, local and international that his statement

meant that “State House is not a place for the invalid. A President should be some one in full control of his faculties both mental and physical.”

I must state that with this explanation as to the meaning of his statement which appeared in the Monitor Newspaper of 8th March 2001, it is clear that the statement was intended to de-campaign the petitioner. However, I have already held that the statement was not proved to be false. Secondly, I have already found that it was not made without any reasonable grounds to believe that it was true. In my view, a statement which was not false, though designed to promote the election of 1^st respondent, would not render the 1^st respondent guilty of illegal practice under section 65 of the Act, and especially when it was not proved that it was made without any reasonable grounds to believe that it was true.

Finally, before I conclude, I wish to comment on the affidavit of Major Rubaramira Ruranga. I do not know why the petitioner found it necessary to bring this affidavit to court. Does it suggest he is conceding that he is a victim of AIDS but contending that despite his concession, he is still capable to carry out the function of the office of President?

Without attempting to give an answer, in my opinion, I think that, considering the AIDS problem which Uganda is faced with and the reasons on which the 1St respondent based his statement which was corroborated by the affidavit of Prof. Rwomushana, I would hold that the petitioner failed to prove that the 1^st respondent committed illegal practice under Section 65 of the Act.

On the complaints that the 1^st respondent offered gifts to voters during electioneering period, the 1s respondent denied the allegation and stated:

“Neither the 1^st respondent nor his agents with his knowledge and consent or approval offered gifts to voters with the intention of inducing them to vote for him.”

Then in para 21 of the petitioner’s affidavit sworn on 5/4/2001 in reply to 1t respondent’s affidavit stated in part as follows:—