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

Commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding eighty currency points or imprisonment not exceeding one year or both.”

This provision prohibits the establishment of special group of people with the intention of training them to interfere with the peaceful organisation of free and fair elections and to intimidate other candidates and supporters in order to gain unfair advantage over the candidate.

There is no evidence that the PPU was established or organised with the intention of training it to interfere with the elections. The evidence on record is that the PPU is a standing facility for the protection of the security of the President of Uganda. Although there was evidence that it was deployed in Rukungiri District; there is no evidence of special training to carry out the activities prohibited in Section 25 (b) of the Act. Whatever activities or electoral offences they were engaged in, there is no evidence that the 1st Respondent personally organised or mandated them to do so. It is therefore not possible to conclude that those provisions of the Act or principles behind them were violated by the PPU.

As regards the allegations against Major Kakooza Mutale and his Kalangala Plan of action, the Petitioner adduced no evidence of their activities, and how they violated the provisions of Section 25 (b) of the Act. In the absence of that evidence it is not possible to understand what principles of the Act were violated. On the contrary Major Kakooza Mutale has given a reasonable and uncontroverted explanation of the origin, composition, purpose and activities of the Action Plan. It does not contain those prohibited acts mentioned in Section 25 (b) of the Act.

In his submissions, Dr. Byamugisha referred to the affidavit of Capt. Ndahura who was the Commandeer of the PPU in Rukungiri who explained why he was sent to prepare and secure the areas for the visit of the 1st Respondent on 16 January 2001. Capt. Ndahura whose evidence has been earlier reviewed denied that the PPU was involved in acts of violence and intimidation. He also denied sending soldiers to Polling Stations and stated that they were permanently camped at State Lodge in Rukungiri.

Learned lead counsel for the 1st Respondent argued that the 1st Respondent’s witnesses had exonerated the 1st Respondent, and he was not personally involved in the acts of terror and violence. He submitted that the PPU are agents of the State not of the President and does not pay them. He contended further that the PPU is in each area where there is a State Lodge, and the President does not deploy PPU, but that is done by the UPDF. He submitted that the 1st Respondent was a Presidential Candidate and therefore the case of Muwonge v Attorney General (1967) E.A. 17 does not apply.

I have already held that the PPU were involved in acts of intimidation in Rukungiri. It is not necessary for me to decide whether their continued stay in Rukungiri was necessary or desirable. The reason given for their continued stay was to prepare for the return of the 1st Respondent probably for campaign. The 1st Respondent was entitled under the Act to retain his security facilities as Head of State. On this basis it cannot be said that the deployment of PPU in Rukungiri was illegal.

The PPU exceeded their powers by engaging in of intimidation and harassment of the Petitioner’s Agents and supporters. The question is whether the 1st Respondent is responsible for their actions. There was no evidence adduced to prove that the 1st Respondent knew and consented to those actions or approved them. It may be said that as Head of State, who is guarded by the PPU, he ought to have known what the PPU was doing in Rukungiri. That may be a good moral judgment or expectation but is not evidence or tact. The 1st Respondent was also a candidate who was busy campaigning throughout the country. There was no evidence that he was responsible for deployment of the PPU. Therefore it cannot be assumed that he knew a consented to their actions. The Petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof to my satisfaction on this allegation.