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

2. If the election was so conducted that it was substantially in accordance with the law as to elections, it is not vitiated by a breach of the rules or a mistake at the polls - provided that it did not affect the result of the election. That is shown by the lslington Ca 17 TLR 210 where 14 ballot papers were issued after 8.00 p.m.

3. But even though the election was conducted substantially in accordance with the law as to elections nevertheless if there was a breach of the rules or a mistake at the polls - and this did affect the result - then the election if vitiated. This was shown by Gunn v Sharpe (1974) QB 808 where the mistake in not stamping 102 ballot papers did affect the result.”

In the Borough of Hackney, Gill v Reed (1874 XXXI L.T. 69 Grove J said,

“The result of the election would in my judgment be affected if instead of majority or 10 or even 10, upon scrutiny the matter might be very different. –

In Ibrahim v Shagari (1985) LRC Const. 1, Nnamani JSC held at page 19 that the word return had been defined in Section 164 of the Electoral Act 1982 No.8 as –

“the declaration of the result of the election in accordance with the appropriate provisions of this Act and includes a certificate of return in form EC 8 in the Schedule to this Act.”

The learned Justice of the Supreme Court added,

“It is my view that the result of the election is in Exhibit B and Exhibit Bi. It was by Exhibit B 1 that the l Respondent was declared as winning the election.”

Although the provisions in the English and Nigerian electoral laws are slightly different from the Ugandan law, I am of the opinion that the authorities from these countries are relevant and persuasive.

In the instant petition, the result of the election is contained in the Declaration of Results Form 3, which was signed by the five members of the 2 Respondent and its Secretary, and was dated 14 March 2001. The result indicated the number of valid votes polled by each candidate, the percentage of the total valid votes cast, the total number of valid votes cast for candidates, the total number of invalid votes and the percentage of the total number of votes cast, the number of votes cast and the percentage of the total number of registered voters, and the candidate who was declared to have been elected as President.

In term of figures, the result was as follows:

1. Awori Aggrey - 103,915(1.4%)

2. Besigye Kizza - 2,055,795 (27.8%)

3. Bwengye Francis A. W. 22,751 (0.3%)

4. Karuhanga K. Chapaa - 10,080(0.1%)

5. Kibirige Mayanja Muhammad - 73,790 (1 .0%)

6. Museveni Yoweri Kaguta - 5,123,360 (69.3%).

The total number of votes cast was 7,389,691. The total number of invalid votes was 1 86,453 amounting to 2.5% of the total number of votes cast. The total number of votes cast was 7,576,144 amounting to 70.3% of the total number of registered voters. The candidate who obtained the highest number of votes in the election and the votes cast in his favour being more than fifty percent of the valid votes cast at the election and was declared elected President of the Republic of Uganda was Museveni Y. Kaguta, the 1st Respondent.

Section 65 (a) of the Act lays down the principle that an election cannot be set aside unless the non-compliance with the provisions and principles of the Act has affected the result in a substantial manner. Dealing with a similar provision in the Parliamentary Elections Statute, in the case of Odetta v Omeda, Election Petition No.001 of 1996, Ntabgoba PJ, said,

“What must the Petitioner prove? He must prove that whatever noncompliance with the provisions of the Statute must have affected the result in a substantial manner. Such proof would involve an analysis of the result.”

In Katwiremu Bategana v Mushemeza Election Petition No.1 of 1996 (HC - Mbarara) the irregularities complained of by the Petitioner included lack of or improper display of voters register, voting by unregistered voters, improper assistance to voters to mark ballot papers under pretext of disability, impersonations voting with cares not in own name and voting more than once by some voters. Although some of the irregularities were proved to have been true, it was held that the irregularities had not affected the result of the election in a substantial manner. Musoke Kibuuka J, said,

“Although the Petitioner has in many instances proved to the satisfaction of the Court that there were irregularities in the process of conducting the Parliamentary elections in Sheema South Constituency he has not gone beyond that as the law requires. He had to show that those irregularities affected the result of the election in a substantial manner. That he has not done. The Petition therefore fails on issue number one.”

Similarly in Ayena Odong v Ben Wacha, Election Petition No.2 of 1996 (HC) Okello, J said,

“In the instant case, there was no evidence of the effect of any alleged irregularities on the results that could be adjusted from the result. All that there is an address by the Petitioner from the Bar, that the effect of the communication of the malpractices to the voters, affected the result of the election in a substantial manner because they changed the minds of the voters in favour of the Respondent. That is not evidence ... the winning margin here is 8,000 votes. That is quite a substantial margin. Without any evidence of the effect of the alleged irregularities proved to be adjusted to the above figure, it is difficult to say that the irregularities affected the result of the election in a substantial manner.”

The need to prove that the result was affected in a substantial manner was emphasised by Ntabgoba, PJ in Odetta v Omed Election Petition N.001 of 1996, as follows:

“I must say that with the additional words in our provision in “substantial manner” the standard of proof under s91 of Statute No.4 of 1996 becomes a great deal higher than the standard of proof in the case of Tanzania discussed by Georges, CJ. What must the Petitioner prove? He must prove that whatever non-compliance with the provisions of the Statute must have affected the results of the election in substantial manner. It is not sufficient therefore to allege and even prove that there was harassment, intimidation and house burning. The Petitioner must go further than that and show that the results of the election were thereby affected and not merely affected but affected in a substantial manner-”

Elections must not be set aside on light or trivial grounds. It is a matter of great public interest. In Gunn v Shame (supra). Wills, J said that “elections should not be lightly set aside simply because there have been informalities and errors. In the Hackney Case (supra) cited with approval in Morgan v Simpson (supra) Grove, J emphasised that an election should not be annulled for minor errors or trivialities. He stated,

“An election is not to be upset for an informality or for a triviality. It is not to be upset because the clock at one of the polling booths was five minutes too late or because some of the voting papers were not delivered in a proper way. The objection must be something substantial, something calculated really to affect the result of the election. I think that is a way of viewing it, which is very consistent with the terms of the section. So far as it appears to me the rational and fair meaning of the section appears to me to prevent an election from becoming void by trifling objections on the ground of informality, but the judge is to look to the substance of the case to see whether the informality is of such a nature as to be fairly calculated in a rational mind to produce a substantial effect upon the election.”

The judge concluded,

“That being my construction of the section, I cannot say considering the very large number of electors who have been disabled from voting upon the present occasion, that under these circumstance it has been an election which may be fairly taken to represent the voices of the electors of Hackney.”

What is a substantial effect? This has not been defined in the Statue or judicial decisions. But the cases of Hackney (supra) and Morgan v Simpson (supra) attempted to define what the word substantial meant. I agree with the opinion of Grove, J. The effect must be calculated to really influence the result in a significant manner. In order to assess the effect the court has to evaluate the whole process of election to determine how it affected the result, and then assess the degree of the effect. In this process of evaluation, it cannot be said that numbers are not important just as the conditions which produced those numbers, numbers are useful in making adjustments for the irregularities.

The crucial point is that there must be cogent evidence direct or circumstantial to establish not only the effect of non-compliance or irregularities but to satisfy the court that the effect on the result was substantial.

In this petition, the Petitioner has proved that there was non-compliance with the provisions and principles of the Act in quite a number of instances. There is no doubt that these irregularities and malpractices had some effect on the results one way or the other. If we take the result of the election as indicated on Form B, there is no evidence adduced to show how the non-compliance with the provisions and principles of the Act affected the results of each candidate, including the Petitioner. No adjustments or calculations based on those irregularities were done even taking into account the factor of intimidation or absence of conditions of freedom and fairness in some instances.

It is understandable to argue that the failure to efficiently compile and update the voters register resulted in ghost voters remaining on the Roll and eligible voters being excluded from the register and thus being denied their right to vote. But there was no evidence that only supporters of the Petitioner were omitted from the Voters Register. The number of eligible voters who were denied the right to vote was not produced. The presence of ghost votes on the Register could have facilitated rigging through impersonation and multiple voting. Again we do not know how many ghost voters were left on the Register.

Attempts were made to prove that the total number of voters announced by the 2 Respondent was inflated. But there was no actual or correct number proved from official or private documents dealing with population census. Instead an academic or theoretical analysis of previous population figures by Mr. Makunzi, an Engineer turned Data Analyst, was presented which was in any case inconclusive.

The failure to supply the Voters rolls to the Petitioner to be used during polling and the failure to publish all Polling Stations must have in one way or another affected the Petitioner’s preparations for monitoring elections. But what was the effect of these omissions on the result of the election?

It was submitted that in the new Polling stations especially in the special areas where the Army soldiers voted, there were more irregularities because there were no Polling Agents and that the 1s Respondent got proportionally more votes than in the surrounding areas in the same District. Even if the facts were correct, this only proves that the non-compliance affected the results, but did it do so in a substantial manner? There was no evidence to this effect.

There was no sufficient evidence to prove the effect of other irregularities like multiple voting, ballot stuffing and pre-ticking of votes. The fact that these malpractices were proved to have occurred is not enough. The Petitioner had to go further and prove their exigent, degree, and the substantial effect they had on the outcome of the election.

I would say the same thing for the malpractices and offences, which caused intimidation and harassment to the agents and supporters of the petitioner which were proved to have occurred. Their intensity and effect varied from area to area. They were intense in Rukungiri and Kanungu where the Petitioner originates and was expected to have big support. They were also experienced in Kabale, Mbale and Kamwenge. Again it must be assumed that the intimidation had some effect, but how much effect?

On the other hand objective facts indicate that the Petitioner performed reasonably well by obtaining 2,055,795 votes, which was 27.8% of the total number of votes cast. He won outright in some District even where the special areas for voting by soldiers existed like Gulu and Kitgum. He performed reasonably well in other Districts of Uganda where there was intimidation and irregularities.

The 1st Respondent got overwhelming support from the population as indicated in the result he got of 5,123,360 votes cast which was 69,3% of the total votes cast. The voter turn up of 70.3% was very high. The difference between the votes obtained by the Respondent and the Petitioner is over 3 million votes. This is a big margin, which cannot be bridged by any reasonable adjustment given to the Petitioner say of 10%.

The international election observers gave their verdict that the elections generally were tree and fair and reflected the general will of the people of Uganda. The observers gave an objective opinion on the elections. Their opinions should be given the due respect they deserve.

Therefore although several malpractices and irregularities were proved in this petition, the Petitioner failed to adduce sufficient evidence direct or circumstantial to satisfy me that those aspects of non-compliance with the provisions and principles of the Act affected the result of the election in a substantial manner.

As Anamansi, JSC said in Ibrahim v Shagari (supra) at p. 24

“Although it seems obvious it needs emphasis that courts of law can only decide issues in controversy between parties on the basis of evidence before them. It would be Invidious if it were otherwise.”