| 6. That during the verification exercise all non-Citizens were identified and removed from the register.”
The affidavit of Balaba Dunstan does not contain anything relevant to Voters’ Register.
So far as it is relevant on the point Barnabas Mutwe’s affidavit states:
“4. That I remember one Nabachwa has a Registration Certificate but no Voter’s Card and her name was not on the Register and disallowed her from voting.
5. That in all there were only four (4) people whose names did not appear in the Register and I did not allow them to vote.”
As section 18 of Act 3/97 provides, it is the responsibility of the 2nd Respondent to compile, maintain and up-date, on a continuing basis, a Voters’ Register which should include the names and persons entitled to vote in any election. The Voters’ Register consists of a Voters’ Roll for each constituency which in turn consists of a Voters’ Roll for each Polling Station within the Constituency. The display exercise mandated by section 25 must be intended to be an aspect of up-dating the Voters’ Roll. If, as Mr. Kasujja said in paragraph 21 of his supplementary affidavit in reply dated 9-4-2001, the up-date of the Register was done at Village level from 11-01-2001 to 22-01-2001, why is it that a display exercise was still necessary to be done between 26th February 2001, and 28 February, 2001 as per Notice dated 23-02-2001, issued by the 2nd Respondent’s Chairperson (Annex.4), to the affidavit dated 1-4-2001 of Mukasa David Bulonge, the Petitioner’s witness? Further, according to the circular to all Display Officers from the 2u,d Respondent’s Chairperson, Mr. Kasujja (Annex: 5 to Bulonge’s affidavit) the documents to be displayed from 26th to 28th February, 2001, at the polling Stations were not the Voters Rolls for the Polling Stations but four documents which appear to be different, namely:
“(i) Register for old voters (Doc. 1A)
Dostları ilə paylaş: |
