| Paragraph 3(1) (a), (b) and (c) of the Petition failure to gazette Polling Stations within time.
“3(11(a) That on 10th March 2001, less than 48 hours before polling day, in addition to the Polling Stations duly published in the Uganda Gazettes of 22nd December 2000, 19th February 2001, and 9th March 2007, the 2nd Respondent made and added new Polling Stations out of time contrary to the provisions of section 28(1) of the Act.
(b) That contrary to section 28 of the Act the 2nd Respondent failed to publish a full list of Polling Stations in each Constituency 14 days before nomination day of 8th and 9th January, 2001.
(c) That as a result of what is stated in paragraph. 3(a) and (b) above, your Petitioner was disabled from appointing his Polling Agents to supervise all the Polling Stations and safeguard the interests of your Petitioner as he was entitled to do under section 32 of the Act.”
In its answer, the 2nd Respondent pleaded:
“1. In reply to paragraph 3(1) (a) and (b) of the Petition the 2nd Respondent avers:
(a) That no new Polling Stations were created but rather some existing Polling Stations were split for purposes of easing the voting process due to the big numbers of voters in those stations and that it was within the 2nd Respondent’s power to split the said Polling Stations as was done.
(b) In the alternative but without prejudice to the foregoing, the second Respondent avers that there is no evidence that the splitting of the said Polling Stations substantially affected the result of the election or at all.
2. In reply to paragraph 3(1) (c) of the Petition the second Respondent avers that the splitting of Polling Stations affected all the candidates equally and that the Petitioner like all other candidates were duly notified of the splitting of the Polling Stations. There is no evidence that the said splitting affected the result of the election or at all”
Section 28 of the Act provides:
“28(1). The Commission shall, by a notice in the Gazette publish —
Dostları ilə paylaş: |
