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

Publication of a false statement:

Publication of a false statement of the illness of a candidate is defined as an illegal practice in s.65 of the Act. It reads:

“65. Any person who, before or during an election, publishes a false statement of the illness, death or withdrawal of a candidate at that election for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of another candidate knowing that statement to be false or not knowing or believing it on reasonable grounds to be true, commits an illegal practice.”

The pleading in paragraph 3(2) (a) of the petition was encased in narrative and argument, but the substance of it was that the 1st Respondent:

Publicly and maliciously made a false statement that (the) Petitioner was a victim of AIDS, without any reasonable ground to believe that it was true, and this false statement had the effect of (unfairly) promoting the election of candidate Museveni Yoweri Kaguta in preference to (the) Petitioner.

In so pleading, the Petitioner assumed the burden of proving to the satisfaction of the court, the following components of the alleged illegal practice.

(a) that the 1st Respondent made the statement;

(b) that he made the statement publicly;

(c) that he made the statement maliciously;

(d) that the statement was false;

(e) that the 1st Respondent had no reasonable ground to believe that the statement was true;

(f) that the statement had the effect of unfairly promoting the election of the Respondent in preference to the Petitioner.

How did the Petitioner go about discharging the burden? He did not have difficulty on the components in (a), (b) and (c). On (a), the 1st Respondent had admitted that he made the statement. There was no need for further proof. On (b) it was not necessary to prove that it was made in public. What the law stipulates is that the respondent “publishes” the statement. It was proved without dispute that the statement was published on Internet, and in TIME, an American magazine, and that it was re-published in the Monitor newspaper. No issue was seriously raised about the 1st Respondent’s responsibility for the publication or republication. Lastly on (c) the pleading that the statement was made maliciously, was superfluous because malice is not an essential ingredient of that illegal practice as defined, It was the remaining three components of the illegal practice as pleaded that were contentious.