| Conclusion on intimidation:
I would summarise my conclusion on the question of intimidation as follows:
First I found that during the Presidential election campaign,
(a) the Petitioner’s electioneering; particularly the campaign conducted by his campaign agents in Rukungiri District was grossly and unlawfully interfered with by PPU soldiers and some Government officials
(b) the Petitioner’s agents and supporters in Rukungiri and Kamwenge Districts, were harassed and intimidated
Secondly I found that on polling day there was intimidation limited to harassment of the Petitioner’s polling agents who protested against irregularities. The pleading that polling agents were chased away from many polling stations in many districts was not borne out by admissible evidence. Thirdly, I found that violation of secret ballot was proved to have occurred in relatively few polling stations. Accordingly, in view of all that I concluded that in those areas the principle of free and fair election was compromised.
With that in mind I make the following observation concerning implementation or enforcement of the principle of free and fair election. Much as the Constitution and the statutory law enacted there under, stress that election must be free and fair, the mechanism for implementing this appears to be rather wanting. The Constitution sets out diverse functions of the Commission in Art.61, and then provides in paragraph (h) thereof that the Commission shall “perform such other functions as may be prescribed by Parliament by Law” Under the Commission Act, Parliament prescribed in S.12 that for purposes of carrying out its Constitutional functions, the Commission shall have, the powers, inter alia
“(e) to take measure for ensuring that the entire electoral process is conducted under conditions of freedom and fairness; and
Dostları ilə paylaş: | 
