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

1ST RESPONDENT’S CASE IN REPLY

The first Respondent denied that his agents/supporters interfered with the electioneering activities of the Petitioner and his agents as alleged and contended that the entire Presidential Electoral Process was conducted under conditions of freedom and fairness and that he obtained a lot “more than 50% of valid votes of those entitled to vote”. As regards the Petitioner’s complaint that the first Respondent alleged that the Petitioner was a victim of AIDS, the first Respondent pleaded that:

1. The statement that the “Petitioner was a victim of AIDS” was not made by the 1st Respondent publicly or maliciously for the purpose of promoting or procuring an election for himself contrary to section 65 of the Act. However, it is also true that a companion of the Petitioner, Judith Bitwire, and her child with the Petitioner died of AIDS. The 1st Respondent has known the Petitioner for a long time and has seen his appearance change over time to bear obvious resemblance to other AIDS victims that the 1st Respondent had previously observed”.

I think that this type of pleading is unsafe. It makes a serious allegation on the basis of sheer perception or subjective opinions.

Here comparison of the affidavit of the Petitioner, that of Dr. Ssekansanvu E. and Major Rubaramura Ruranga on the one hand and those of the first Respondent, of Dr. Mwene Mushanga and Marita Namayanja on the other hand. It is clear that the first Respondent admits the making of the statement and believes that the Petitioner suffers from AIDS. The only question is what was the effect and consequence of this statement in the election process.

On gifts, the first Respondent said that neither himself, nor his agents with his knowledge and consent or approval offered gifts to voters with the intention of inducing them to vote for him. I have referred to the affidavits of witnesses for both sides on this question. These include the Petitioner and witness from Ntungamo, Tororo, and Arua on the one hand and the first Respondent, his NTF secretary Moses Byaruhanga, Kabonero of Ntungamo and others on the other hand.

The first Respondent denied allegations in paragraph 3(2)(c) and (d) of the petition contending that the entire electoral process was conducted under conditions of freedom and fairness and secure conditions necessary for the conduct of the election in accordance with the Act and other laws. Here we have to compare the affidavits of the Petitioner, of Winnie Byanyima and other witnesses from Rukungiri, Kamwenge, Ntungamo. I have in away already discussed this matter when I discussed the third issue.

In reply to paragraph 2 of the petition, the second Respondent denied any knowledge of the allegations imputed against the first Respondent. It also denied any illegal practices or offences committed by him, his agents and/or supporters.