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

OBJECTIONS TO AFFIDAVITS SUPPORTING PETITION

The counsel for the two Respondents objected to the admissibility of very many affidavits sworn in support of the petition. We heard the petition de bene esse promising to decide the question of the admissibility and or probative value of any of the affidavits to which objection was made later in the judgment. I had personally gone through the affidavits before the objections were raised. I formed the view that the requirement for this petition to be heard essentially on affidavits created problems for those drawing affidavits hurriedly so as to beat time. In addition to what I am going to say presently, I think that Article 126(2) (e) applies to most if not all, of the affidavits objected to. I would therefore overrule the objection for lack of merit.

The objections were raised by Dr. Byamugisha, lead Counsel for the first respondent and his deputy lead Counsel. But it was Mr. Didus Nkurunziza who presented the arguments in support of the objections. The Solicitor General, Mr. Peter Kabatsi supported the objections.

Mr. Nkurunziza classified the affidavits in three categories:

(1) He called the first category “inadmissible affidavits” to which objection should have been made initially but because of the need to expedite the hearing of the petition, the objection was postponed to the stage of the main submissions by his side.

(2) Those affidavits specifically referred to by Counsel for the petitioner in his address to this Court.

(3) Those affidavits, which were filed but were not referred to specifically by Counsel for the petitioner in his address to the Court.