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

Special polling stations:

A major complaint about the special polling stations for soldiers was that many of them were not published or disclosed until they were seen on the polling day or their particulars were found in the results. Counsel for the Petitioner referred to those “as sham polling stations.” Although strictly, this was not a specifically pleaded complaint, I found it to be sufficiently linked to the pleading in sub- paragraphs 3(1) (a) and (b) of the petition, that it was inescapable to consider the evidence, which showed that some of the special polling stations were not set up in compliance with law. The evidence was also in two categories, namely direct and indirect. The direct evidence was from witnesses who deponed that on polling day they found, inside or outside army barracks, voting in progress at polling stations which were not expected to be there. The indirect evidence is in the affidavit of Mukasa David Bulonge who obtained, from the Commission, tally sheets for the election results in respect of Kitgum, Gulu and Kamwenge Districts on which were included results from such undisclosed polling stations.

Altogether three documents, containing particulars of special polling stations for soldiers, were produced in evidence. The first was the Uganda Gazette of l9th February, 2001 read together with the amendments in the issue of 9th March. The Second was the ungazetted list of all polling stations distributed on 11th March. The third is an undated detailed list of all the special polling stations for soldiers. It does not appear to have been published or distributed. It came in evidence as an annexture to Chairman Kasujja’s supplementary affidavit. For ease of reference I will call that “the Chairman’s list”. In the said supplementary affidavit Chairman Kasujja explained that all army polling stations had been listed in the Gazette as “Outside Quarter Guard” but ultimately the number of soldiers had determined the ballot boxes (and therefore number of polling stations) to be used. That explanation would have been plausible if all the special polling stations were included in the list of 1lth March, 2001, since it is reasonable to assume that by that date the number of soldiers registered to vote was known to the Commission. But not all the polling stations set up for, and used by, the soldiers were included in that list, as was shown in the evidence which I proceed to summarise.

One complaint was about Upper Mbuya. It was by Ebulu Vicent, the Petitioner’s polling monitor for Mbuya Barracks who deponed that on polling day, he unexpectedly found seven polling stations inside the barracks and had to send for more polling agents to deal with what he called “this crisis situation.” Capt. Ondoga, the Division Political Commissar, while insisting that they were all outside the barracks, admitted that there were seven polling stations for Upper Mbuya. In the gazette list of polling stations for soldiers there had been listed under Mbuya Parish, one polling station “Outside Quarter Guard.” However in the list of 11th March, this polling station was not listed, though a total of 18 polling stations were listed for Mbuya I and Mbuya II parishes. It was only in the undisclosed Chairman’s list that seven polling stations for Upper Mbuya and four for Lower Mbuya appeared. It was not explained how such a large number of polling stations was omitted from the “final” list of polling stations. It appears to me therefore that they were not set up in compliance with the provisions of the relevant law and the principles laid down therein.

The second complaint was raised in the affidavit of James Oluka, the Petitioner’s polling agent at Akisim Barracks in Soroti Municipality. He deponed that there were supposed to be only two polling stations at those barracks identified as Akisim Barracks “A-D” and “E-Z”, outside the barracks. He was surprised to find two more inside the barracks, which were later brought outside also. Two officials, namely Omuge George William, the Returning Officer for Soroti, and Cpl. Oyo James, the Political Commissar, tried to explain what happened. They deponed in their respective affidavits that there were three polling stations, i.e. Akisim Barracks A-D, Akisim Barracks E-Z, and a third one which the former called “Akisim Barracks Outside Quarter Guard” and the latter called “Akisim (Outside Quarter Guard) barracks polling station.” What appeared in the Gazette and the Chairman’s list under Akisim Ward of Soroti Municipality was “Polling Station Cell II (Outside Quarter Guard).” In the list of 11th March only two polling stations were listed and identified as “Akisim Barracks A-D” and “Akisim Barracks E-Z.” The alleged third polling station was not listed in any of the three documents. As for the fourth polling station the two officials explained that an additional ballot box had been brought to Soroti barracks for use by soldiers recently transferred from Olilim barracks, in Katakwi District, It formed the fourth polling station at Akisim barracks. However I failed to trace any polling station for “Olilim Barracks” in any of the three documents. The only polling station bearing the name “Olilim” and which was included in the ordinary list gazetted on 22 December 2000, and in the list of 11th March 2001, was Olilim Primary School, in Usuk County, Ngarian Sub-county. Both the gazetted special polling stations and the Chairman’ list include only two polling stations for soldiers in Katakwi i.e. Oburatum and Okuliak. My conclusion on all that evidence was that the two extra stations at Akisim Barracks were not located lawfully.
In his supplementary affidavit Mukasa David Bulonge made two points. The first was that he had found in the tally sheets in respect of Kitgum and Gulu Districts, six and eight polling stations respectively, which were neither gazetted nor included in the list of 11th March. He did not, however, disclose what he found, if any, from the tally sheets in respect of the third district, Kamwenge. Of the six he named in Kitgum tally sheets, I found that at least three, i.e. Ngomoromo “A-E”, “F-N” and “O-Z” in Lamwo County, Lokung Sub-county, Pawor Parish, were on the undisclosed Chairman’s list, leaving three appearing in the tally sheets only. Then of the eight in the Gulu tally sheets, it appeared that he miss-spelt the name of one, because I could not trace it in the tally sheets.

Five of them, i.e. Kasubi “A-A”, “B-L”, “0-0”, “114-N’ and “P-Z” appeared to be within the description of what appeared on the Chairman’s list and on the list of 11th March. In the Gazette there appeared under Gulu Municipality, Sub-county Bar-Dege, Parish Gulu Barracks, “Polling Station Kasubi (Outside Quarter Guard)” The list of 11th March showed twelve polling stations under Gulu Barracks Parish. Code Nos.01 and 02 were named Airfield I and II respectively. Code Nos.03 to 12 were named Gulu Barracks and distinguished with letters “A (A-L)” up to “C (0-Z)” The Chairman’s list on the other hand listed only five polling stations as they appeared in the tally sheets. The remaining two were recorded in the tally sheets as “Bibia Outside Quarter Guard B-N and O-Z” with a third one recorded separately without the letters. All three however were under Bibia Parish, Atiak Sub-county, Kilak County. In the Gazette there appeared only “polling station: Bibia Outside Quarter Guard,” and in the list of 11th March simply “Bibia Barracks” The Chairman’s list however has all three named “Bibia Outside Quarter Guard” and identified as “A-A “, “B-N” and “O-Z” My conclusion from this evidence was also that there were set up and used (at least three in Kitgum and two in Gulu) special polling stations for soldiers which were not disclosed prior to polling.

I am constrained to observe that it remains an unexplained puzzle to me, how those polling stations, 2 in Soroti, 3 in Kitgum, and 2 in Gulu obtained polling materials when they were not reflected even on the Chairman’s list.

The second point Mukasa Bulonge made with a thinly veiled innuendo was that he observed in those polling stations he named, that “the 1st Respondent got results that sharply contrast with the pattern of results got from polling stations that were gazetted and/or in the list submitted on 11th March 2001.”

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that out of the so-called sham polling stations arose ballot stuffing, chasing of agents, multiple, under-age and ghost voting, and falsifying of results. Needless to say, with due respect to counsel, that his conclusion was speculation based on suspicion. A court of law does not base a decision on speculation or suspicion. However, the suspicion and speculation were understandable in circumstances where previously undisclosed polling stations were used for soldiers. That inevitably undermined the principle of transparency.

There was also an anomaly regarding separate registration of soldiers as voters. Chairman Kasujja, explaining a discrepancy in numbers of registered voters deponed in his supplementary affidavit in reply:

“28. That after the referendum of June 2000 the register on cleaning had about 9,308,173 voters, after the update referred to above the number rose to 11,093,948 voters. After display and clean up, the number reduced to 10,672,389. This however did not include soldiers and adults living with them and when they were included the number rose by 103,447 to 10,775,836.”