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

Other intimidation in Rukungiri:

There were many other affidavits on the subject of intimidation, deponed by persons who were in Rukungiri District during the period of the electoral process, and who personally experienced or witnessed activities of intimidation by PPU soldiers and other officials in the area. The deponents, who were all agents of the Petitioner in one capacity or another, stressed that the PPU soldiers were prominently deployed everywhere in Rukungiri and Kanungu. They described incidents in which, PPU soldiers, often accompanied by government officials such as the District Resident Commissioner (DRC), or his Deputy, the Gombolora Internal Security Officer (GISO), the Local Defence Unit (LDU) personnel and Local Council (LC) officials –

• harassed the Petitioner’s agents and their landlords into closing branch offices;

• harassed the Petitioner’s agents into abandoning consultative meetings,

• forcefully dispersed rallies for the Petitioner’s campaign

• threatened, assaulted, and even arrested and detained known agents and supporters of the Petitioner.

I will only highlight some of those incidents described. Kakuru Sam and Mpabwooba Callist deponed in their respective affidavits, that in January, 2001 while some of the Petitioner’s supporters were meeting at the house of James Musinguzi, about 14 PPU soldiers surrounded, and kept staring at, them until it became impossible to continue. The meeting was abandoned. Koko Medard and Mpabwooba Callist, deponed of another early incident which featured Hon. Okwiri Rabwoni, who was to address a campaign rally for the Petitioner at Rugyeyo in Kanungu. PPU soldiers with one Twagira a GISO, travelling in the vehicle of Capt. Ndahura, the PPU Commander, came to the area. They assaulted agents Kanyabitabo and Caapa Bakunzi for having mobilised people for the rally. They then beat up the people who had turned up and forcefully dispersed the rally. Two agents were abducted and taken away on the pickup. Bernard Matsiko deponed that in early February, PPU soldiers with Deputy RDC and GISO went to the Petitioner’s campaign office in Kayonza sub-county and ordered removal of the sign-post and campaign posters, which the office attendant did out of fear. Thereafter, following threats by the LC Ill Chairman, the office was subsequently closed altogether. Bashaija Richard also deponed that on 3rd March, while he was arranging for the Petitioner’s rally in Rukungiri town, Capt. Ndahura called him, and at gun point threatened to shoot him if anything happened to PPU personnel that day. One other incident on the same day was at Bikurungu in Bwambara sub-county. It is narrated in the affidavit of Frank Byaruhanga who went there with Robert Sebunya, in place of the Petitioner, to address one of the rallies the Petitioner had had to skip. On arrival, their driver, the Petitioner’s Task Force Chairman, and the sub-county cashier, were taken aside by PPU soldiers and caned as punishment for mobilising for the rally. The punishment was on the pretext that no one, other than the Petitioner, was allowed to address a rally there that day. The soldiers then set upon the people, beating and harassing them, and ordering them to disperse. As a result, the rally aborted. Mubangizi Dennis, Vice Chairman of the Petitioner’s task force for Bwambara sub-county was a victim in that incident. He deponed that while waiting for the Petitioner to come to address the rally at Bikurungu he was arrested and beaten by PPU soldiers, and was taken and detained at Nyabubare barracks where he was severely assaulted. After release he was hospitalised. Byomuhangi Kaguta deponed that on 1 March he was arrested by PPU soldiers and was damped in a pit (ndaki) at the barracks where he spent a night. The following day Buterere and Tukahirwa were brought to join him in the pit. All three spent the polling day in the pit and therefore did not vote.

James Musinguzi was “in charge” of the Petitioners campaigns in South - Western Uganda. He deponed that as soon as the Petitioner announced his candidature; the PPU was heavily deployed in Rukungiri and Kanungu and remained there up to elections. According to him the PPU soldiers “unleashed terror” on the Petitioner’s supporters. He also asserted that this terror increased, when, shortly before the Petitioner’s visit, both the Regional Police Commander and the District Police Commander were made to leave the area. Hence the shooting on 3 March 2001. Koko Medard deponed that PPU soldiers were for about 3 months prominently present “throughout Kambuga, Kihihi, Kayonza and other places.” He used to see them daily as he traveled a lot. He added:

“They used to move (with) Mugisha Muhwezi (Dy DRC) who used to point out to them who of us to harass. During this period they tore Besigye’s posters, would disperse any group of three or more people they met, saying we were Besigye’s supporters.”

In the affidavit in support of his answer to the petition, the 1st Respondent generally denied any personal knowledge of acts of intimidation committed by the PPU and other soldiers, paramilitary personnel, or his agents. He made no specific reference to intimidation in Rukungiri, I will revert to his specific denials when I discuss the fourth issue.

Maj. Gen. Odongo Jeje, the Army Commander of Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF)I swore an affidavit in support of the 1st Respondent’s answer to the petition. With regard to the deployment of PPU in Rukungiri, he deponed that:

“…...members of the PPU which is a specialised unit for the protection of the President were deployed in Rukungiri in advance to his visit to the area sometime in January 2001 and their stay was necessitated by his planned return to the area, having taken into consideration the safety of the person of the President and the general peace and security of the area.”

He generally denied all allegations made in the Petitioner’s affidavit about the activities of the PPU soldiers in Rukungiri. He then stated that 3rd March 2001 he received a report that:

“there was clash between groups of people in Rukungiri after the Petitioner had addressed a public rally and in the process some members of the groups pelted stones, bottles and sticks at the soldiers and in the process of self-defence one person was fatally wounded by a stray bullet.” (Emphasis is added).

Capt. Atwooki B. Ndahura, the Commander of the PPU soldiers deployed in Rukungiri, was named in connection with some of the incidents. He swore an affidavit in which he rebutted each and every allegation made against himself and against the PPU soldiers. His reply on specific issues may be summarised as follows: In January 2001, PPU soldiers under his command were deployed in advance of the President’s campaign visit to Rukungiri on 16th January, 2001, to ensure his security. They stayed in the area after that date for the same purpose, because the President was scheduled to return for another rally. He stressed that his soldiers were permanently camped at the state lodge in Rukungiri Town, and never moved out without him or his knowledge. Although they carried out reconnaissance on routes which the President was likely to use, they did not surround or enter people’s houses. He denied chasing Hon. Okwiri Rabwoni from the area or dispersing his rally, but explained:

“I only assisted the Kanungu police with transport to disperse what the 0/C deemed an illegal rally which Hon. Okwiri was addressing in Rugyeyo. I also ordered my soldiers to arrest Hon. Okwiri’s unauthorised escort who was a UPDF soldier in active service. The police also arrested two people for uttering abusive words against the President.”

On the events of 2nd and 3rd March, Capt. Ndahura denied any involvement by PPU soldiers. He nevertheless described the incidents, without disclosing that he witnessed them in person. He said that a joint force of police and UPDF soldiers from the Garrison Battalion of 2nd Division was charged with security of Rukungiri town. On 2nd March, a crowd of the Petitioner’s supporters attacked the joint force on patrol under the command of IP Bashaija, and injured soldiers and a policeman, who, as a result, had to be admitted in hospital. On the incident of 3 March, he said the joint force on patrol:-

“…..intervened to disperse a rowdy and violent crowd of the Petitioner’s supporters who pelted stones at civilians and also at the joint security force. The shooting was in the air and meant to disperse them to save the situation from getting out of hand. Two people had already got seriously wounded by the Petitioner’s stone throwing supporters.”

Capt. Ndahura also specifically denied that on the same day he had threatened to shoot Bashaija Richard, and that any PPU soldiers had beaten and dispersed people at a rally in Bwambara which Robert Sebunya was about to address.

Before I turn to evidence of intimidation elsewhere, I think it is appropriate to conclude on this evidence concerning PPU soldiers in Rukungiri and Kanungu, since PPU did not feature in evidence from elsewhere. From the evidence I have just reviewed, two conflicting contentions emerged. The contention on the Petitioner’s side was that the PPU soldiers were deployed in the area to suppress any support for the Petitioner through harassing his agents and instilling fear in his supporters, and other voters who did not support the 1s Respondent. The contention, by the military witnesses was that the role of the PPU soldiers was only to ensure the security of the President on his visit to the area. I am constrained to express my impression at the outset, that neither side made a full disclosure on the subject. In his first affidavit, the Petitioner significantly averred (in paragraph 16) that the 1st Respondent deployed the PPU soldiers in Rukungiri.

‘to protect his supporters and these PPU soldiers intimidated and harassed my supporters……”

That begs the question: “what were the 1st Respondent’s supporters to be protected from?” That statement tends to tally with the equally flitting remarks in the affidavits of the Army Commander and Capt. Ndahura about group clashes and “the Petitioner’s stone throwing supporters” The other contention also leaves much unexplained. According to the official campaign programme for candidates, the President was scheduled to campaign in Rukungiri on 1 6th January, and in Kanungu on 3rd February, 2001. Even if allowance is made for the PPU soldiers to go in advance of the first visit, and for them to remain in the area for a period of nearly three weeks waiting for the second visit, no legitimate reason was suggested in the evidence, for their continued stay up to beyond polling day, a period of over five weeks after the President’s last visit. Additionally, even the limited admission by Capt. Ndahura that he provided assistance to the police to disperse a rally which Hon. Okwiri was addressing, and that he ordered for the arrest of Hon. Okwiri’s escort, is eloquent evidence that, during their presence in Rukungiri, the PPU soldiers over-stepped the specialised duty of protecting the person of the President.

In weighing all the affidavit evidence on the subject, I took into account the apparent tendency by deponents on both sides, to over or under state facts, and of minor discrepancies on detail. However in the end from the details narrated by the witnesses and the overall consistency and corroboration, I was convinced that the evidence in support of the petition on the role of the PPU soldiers in Rukungiri was not a fabrication or exaggeration. I was also convinced that Capt. Ndahura was not a truthful witness in this regard. Whatever the initial intention for in the deployment, I satisfied that during their stay in Rukungiri and Kanungu, the PPU soldiers engaged in diverse unlawful activities of violence, harassment and intimidation against the Petitioner’s agents and supporters, as well as the electorate.

In addition to evidence on the activities of PPU soldiers, there was other evidence of intimidation in the same area. Other operatives such as GISO’s and supporters of the 1st Respondent, sometimes referred to in the affidavits as vigilantes, took advantage of the atmosphere generated by PPU activities, to also harass the Petitioner’s supporters. However, I should point out that it appears not to have been all one way. Although evidence on unlawful activities by the Petitioner’s operatives was subdued, what surfaced was sufficient to indicate that there were incidents perpetrated by them. That however, did not mitigate but aggravated the situation. In elections, if intimidation is countered with intimation the two do not cancel each other, but increase fear thus undermining further the principle of free and fair election.