By Edwin Tabaro
On 14th January 2021, Uganda held Presidential and Parliamentary elections. This was followed by local government elections and election of special interest groups. Like any other exercise, there arose disputes. Some candidates who were dissatisfied with the results and the process of elections, prominent of which was the presidential petition Robert Sentamu Kyagulanyi vs Yoweri K Museveni Tibaruhaba and others presidential election petition 1 of 2021. It is the constitutional duty of courts to resolve such electoral disputes in a fair and transparent manner in regard to principles set out by the law. This paper however covers petitions at parliamentary and local government level which are governed by the same principles. The law governing election petitions is the Parliamentary Elections Act and the rules made thereunder, the Local Government Act which refers to the parliamentary elections act and the rules providing for rules of procedure in the PEA act and very limitedly the civil procedure rules where a procedure is not provided for by the PEA.
Free and fair elections
The law in Uganda does not define what amounts to a free and fair election; it is however inferred from chapter four of the constitution and case law. In Rtd Col Kizza Besigye v. HE Yoweri Museveni No.1 of 2001 and No.1 of 2006, the supreme court stated that:
”a free and fair election is one that is representative of the will of the electorate”. According to Article 1 of the 1995 Constitution, the people of Uganda are sovereign. This therefore means that the government derives its authority from the will of the people of Uganda. A country therefore cannot be truly democratic until its citizens have the opportunity to choose their representatives through elections that are free and fair. Critical development efforts cannot succeed without a legitimate and democratically elected government that is responsive and accountable to its citizens.”
Although the criteria for judging whether an election is free and fair have been developed in various contexts, developing such theoretical concepts into a comprehensive list of factors has proved difficult. The word “free” connotes freedom while “fair” connotes fairness. Fairness connotes impartiality both regularity (unbiased application of rules) and reasonableness (unequal treatment/ unequal distribution of relevant resources) An election is considered free and fair after considering all events before and after voting day.The pre-election period consists of campaigns, application of rules and guidelines and distribution of election material. Post-election period entails the counting of ballots, announcing of election results and handling of complaints”.
In order to have confidence that elections are truly free and fair, voters need to be assured of more than just a well-managed day of polling but rather a free and fair election process in its entirety. For an election to be free and fair, there should be a society that encourages citizens to vote, that provides space for political parties to work and campaign freely, an independent media and civil society, and a judiciary capable of acting with impartiality. In addition, certain civil liberties, such as the freedoms of speech, association and assembly, are also required.
I shall consider key procedural issues and steps to take in filing a petition.
Burden of Proof
Like in many civil cases, the burden lies with the petitioner to prove the allegations in the petition. The Supreme Court in Col (Rtd) Kizza Besigye V Museveni Yoweri and Another Presidential Election Petition Number 1 of 2001 held that the burden of proof lies squarely with the petitioner to prove what he or she asserts. The court relied on Section 101 of the Evidence Act which stipulates that the onus is always on the plaintiff and if he makes out a case which entitles him to relief, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove those circumstances if any which would disentitle the plaintiff to the same.
The court highlighted that the party on whom the onus lies must prove his case to justify his case sufficiently to justify a judgment in his or her favor if there is no other evidence given to contradict it.
Standard of Proof
The standard of proof in Election petitions is higher than the one in other civil matters. This was highlighted in the case of Col (Rtd) Kizza Besigye V Museveni Yoweri and Another Presidential Election Petition Number 1 of 2001 where the court inter alia held that the petitioner has a heavier standard of proof than in ordinary civil suits because he or she is asking the court to annul the respondent’s election results. That the standard of to prove these charges is very high just near beyond reasonable doubt.
This is provided for by S.61 (1) and states that an election of a member of parliament shall be set aside where failure to comply non with the electoral laws affected results in a substantial manner. Whereas it is true that in applying the substantiality test, the whole election process must be evaluated, one can still not run away from the numbers.
In BUSINGE FRED POLICE V KITHENDE KALIBOGHA & ANOR HCEP NO. 05/2006 while citing the decision of Col (Rtd) Dr. Kiiza Besigye v Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, SCEP No. 01/2001, Odoki CJ stated;
“For court to decide whether or not the non-compliance affected the results in a substantial manner, it must be proved to its satisfaction on a balance of probabilities that the non-compliance was calculated to really influence the result in a significant manner. In order to assess the effect, court has to evaluate the whole process of election to determine how it affected the results 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”. See Odoki C.J in Col (Rtd) Dr. Besigye Kiiza (supra at page 159)
Note that the substantiality test does not apply to b and c where an offence is found to have been committed.
Trial of election petitions
S. 64 of the parliamentary elections act provides for trial of election petitions to be heard in open court by the High Court and after due inquiry, dismiss the petition, declare that a candidate other the candidate declared elected was validly elected, set aside the election and order a new election. The procedure for trial is provided for by the in the matter of the Parliamentary Elections (interim provisions) (election petition) rules 141-2. Trial is by affidavit evidence and all affidavits are deemed to have been read at filing. The sequence include filing the petition accompanied by affidavits of the petitioner and his or her witnesses, which are replied to by the respondent who files an answer to the petition together with replies. The petitioner can file rejoinders. He can also file additional affidavits in case of new evidence not previously filed or supplementary affidavits to clarify or add to matters in an affidavit already filed.
Application for Recount:
Application for recount is made to a Chief Magistrate. Section 55 (1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act for provides for it to be made within seven days after the date on which a returning officer has, in accordance with section 58, declared as elected the candidate who has obtained the highest number of votes, any candidate may apply to the Chief Magistrate for a recount.
Subsection (2) provides that the Chief Magistrate shall appoint the time to recount the votes which time shall be within four days after receipt of the application under subsection (1) and the recount shall be conducted in accordance with the directions of the Chief Magistrate.
In the case of Kasibante Moses versus Katongole Sign and another Election petition 23 of 2011, it was held that the chief in this instance does not only order for a recount but also conducts the recount and at the end of the court process, the chief magistrate will prepare and sign a certificate of recount order with seal of court.
Common Electoral offences
Bribery and Illegal practices
Section 68 (1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act is to the effect that a person who before or during an election intending to influence another to vote or refrain there from for any candidate gives or causes to be given or provides any money, gift or other consideration to that person commits the offence of bribery.
The Supreme Court stated in Kizza Besigye v Y.K Museveni, held that for proof of bribery; the petitioner must prove the following ingredients to establish the illegal practice of offering gifts.
- That a gift was given to a voter.
- That the gift was given by a candidate or his agent
- That the gift was given to induce the person to vote for the candidate.
The effect of bribery is that the election can be set aside the under Section 61 (1) (c), which provides for the nullification of the election on grounds that an illegality or offence has been committed. Note that one single incident alone can be relied on to nullify an election ( Odo Tayebawa vs Nasser Basajabala)
The offence of bribery is provided for by S.68 of the Parliamentary Elections Act. It provides:
section 68(1) of the parliamentary Elections Act provides that a person who, either before or during an election with intent, either directly or indirectly to influence another person to vote or to refrain from voting for any candidate, gives or provides or causes to be given or provided any money, gift or other consideration to that other person, commits the offence of bribery and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding seventy two currency points or imprisonment not exceeding three years or both.”
In Musinguzi Garuga James versus Amama Mbabazi and EC, Egonda-Ntende, J. at page 84 of his judgment para.307 gave the ingredients of the offence of bribery as the following:
Any person before or during an election with intent either directly or indirectly to influence another person to vote or refrain from voting for any candidate, gives or provides or causes to be given or provided any money or gift or other consideration to that other person.”
In the case of (Rtd) Dr.Besigye Kizza vs Museveni Yoweri Kaguta and EC, Odoki, CJ in his judgment at pages 164 and 165, while commenting on illegal practicesor offences, made two observations
(i) That there is no requirement to prove that the illegal practice affected the result in a substantial manner.
(ii) The provision requires that the candidate be liable for the actions of his agents only when they are committed with his knowledge and consent or approval. To this extent the general principles of the law of agency have been modified.
Concerning specifically the illegal practice of offering gifts Odoki CJ in his judgment at page 180 said:
“I accept the submission of Mr. Bitangaro that the petitioner must prove the following ingredients to establish the illegal practice of offering gifts: –
(i) that a gift was given to a voter
(ii) that the gift was given by a candidate or his agent
(iii) that the gift was given to induce the person to vote for the candidate.
It is trite law that the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to prove all the ingredients of the illegal practice under section 68 (i) of the Act.
On the question of the agency relationship between a candidate and his representatives or agents the law is that the candidate is liable only on proof that the agent acted on the candidate’s express or implied authority or that the candidate ratified the act after it was done or appointed the agent to do all acts legal or illegal which he might think proper to support the candidate’s interest. An agent was defined in Odo Tayebwa vs Nasser Basajabalab as any person who puts himself in a place as to act for the candidate with his consent or approval.
“I do not think that prior knowledge and express consent or express permission or approval of a candidate is a necessary prerequisite to the Commission of an illegal practice or any other offences by a representative or an agent before a candidate’s election is rendered liable to annulment.
In the nature of things, no candidate would openly and in public give consent or approval to his agents to commit illegal practices or other electoral offences……
I think that once there is evidence of agency, gathered from the surrounding facts, the candidate should be held liable for the wrongful conduct of his agent/representative.”
Commenting on the statutory provision in S.58 (6) (c) of the Presidential Election Act (similar to S.61 (1) (c) of the Parliamentary Elections Act) Mulenga, JSC, said:
“Under that section, it is clear that an illegal practice or other offence which was not committed by the candidate, can be sustained as a ground for annulment of his election, only if it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that it was committed with the candidate’s “knowledge and consent”, or with his or her knowledge and approval.”
No candidate has a right to intimidate another, let alone any member of the electorate no matter his political shade or opinion. Article 1 of the constitution vests power in the people to express their free will in determining their political leaders through periodical elections. Threats or acts of intimidation interferes with the peaceful atmosphere and subverts the will of the electorate to choose leaders of their choice.
Section 80 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, provides for the offence of undue influence, that where a person directly or indirectly in person or through any other person makes use of, or threatens to make use of, any force or violence, inflicts or threatens to inflict in person or through any other person any temporal or spiritual injury, damage, harm or loss upon or against any person, in order to induce or compel that person to vote or refrain from voting, or on account of that person having voted or refrained from voting.
Section 76(j) of the Parliamentary Elections Act is to the effect that any person not being authorized so to do under this Act makes any mark on a ballot paper issued to a person, other than the person making the mark, with intent that the ballot paper shall be used to record the vote of that other person commits an offence.
The High Court in Musinguzi Garuga v. Amama Mbabazi & EC HCT-05-CV-EPA-0003 OF 2001 cited the decision of Musoke Kibuka, J., in Winnie Babihuga v Masiko Winnie Komuhangi and others H.C.T.00-CV-EPA-0004 of 2001 when he stated, “the election must be conducted under conditions that enable the voter to cast his or her vote as he or she wishes, purely on his or her own accord. The conditions must be such as enable the voter to cast his or her vote for whoever candidate he or she wishes to vote for. There must be no obstruction, harassment, hindrance, threats or intimidation. There must be no bribery to induce the voter one way or the other. There must be no conditions creating fear in the minds of voters for persecution or victimization after the elections have taken place.”
Fredrick M.S. Egonda-Ntende J., in Musinguzi Garuga v. Amama Mbabazi & EC(Supra) stated that “Intimidation in the electoral process may, as I have indicated manifest in diverse forms, from acts of violence and harassment, to invasion of secrecy of voting. It can affect the result in two ways. In one way, it may prevent fair competition between or among the contesting candidates. Secondly it may cause voters not to vote according to their free will, either by compelling them not to vote or vote for a candidate they do not freely choose.
The effect is that this is an offence which can lead to setting aside the election under Section 61(1) (c).
UTTERING FALSE STATEMENTS
Every person has a right to his or her good name. Therefore, no candidate or his supporter has a right to make defamatory remarks intended to dent the image of another among the eyes of the electorate.
In the case of Aggrey Awori Siryoyi versus Mugeni Stephen and Electoral Commission EP 5 of 2006 Justice katusti defined the word to “utter” inter alia as:
“….to publish or to put forth. “The word ‘publish’ is defined by the same dictionary as: “To make public; to circulate, to make known to people in general. To issue, to put in circulation. Top utter, to present…”
The words uttered / complained of must have meaning attached to it and must refer to the petitioner, in the case of Amama Mbabazi versus Yoweri K. Museveni and others Presidential Election petition 1 of 2016 the supreme court held that the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities and that the words referred to must have the meaning attached to them against the petitioner. The court also held that a court must be cautious in distinguishing vulgar vebarations from defamatory marks since the political campaigns are hotly contested.
It should further be emphasized that the right to free speech, especially in election campaigns should not be stifled. Section 21 (2) of the PEA provides:
“Subject to any other law, every candidate shall enjoy complete and unhindered freedom of expression and access to information in the exercise of the right to campaign under this Act”.
The provision is couched in similar words as S. 23 (2) of the Presidential Elections Act, and in Rtd. Col. Dr. Kizza Besigye Vs E.C. and Another SC.EP No. 1 of 2006 the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the effect of that provision in the Presidential Elections Act, which is in material with S. 21 (2) of the PEA.
Ballot stuffing contrary to section 76 (f) of the Parliamentary Elections Act
The court in Suubi Kinyamatama Juliet v. Sentongo Robinah Nakasirye EPA 92 of 2016 expounded on this offence that, “Section 76 (f) PEA creates the offence of ballot stuffing. It provides that a person who knowingly and intentionally puts into a ballot box anything other than the ballot paper which he or she is authorized to put in, commits an offence.
Ballot stuffing was defined in Toolkit Simon Akecha v. Oulanya Jacob L’Okori and Another EPA No. 19 of 2011 as ‘Ballot stuffing therefore is an election malpractice which involves voting more than once at a polling station or moving to various polling stations casting votes either in the names of people who did not exist at all or those who are dead or are absent at the time of voting and yet they are recorded to have voted. Ideally, at the end of the polling exercise the number of votes cast ought to be equal to the number of people who physically turned up to vote.
Declaration of results (DR Forms)
S. 51 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, provides for a declaration form which shall be signed by a presiding officer of a polling station and agents of candidates. If a DR Form shows clearly that there were discrepancies and irregularities relating to the voting and declaration of results in the constituency which are sufficient to vitiate the results in the constituency, then the election in that polling station are annulled. Such discrepancies include wrong tallies, higher ballots cast than the registered voters at the polling station.
In KAKOOZA JOHN BAPTIST VERSUS ELECTOAL COMMISION AND ANR ELECTION APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2007 KANYEIHAMBA JSC stated that:
“On the contention that the returning officer or his agents failed to sign declaration forms, I agree with counsel for the appellant that it is a statutory requirement for the presiding officer at an election polling station to sign the DRForms and to fulfil all the requirements contained in Section 50 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, 2005. However, I do not agree that it is obligatory that each candidate or his or her election agent must first be supplied with or receive a copy of every declaration form before all the results are declared and validated. In my view, the election results should be declared immediately after the count and the signature of the DR Forms by the returning officer and other relevant persons in accordance with the relevant laws.”
In conclusion, the Presidential Elections Act is intended to further the objectives of the Constitution of Uganda by promoting free and unhindered freedom of expression by candidates in an election while advancing democracy.
In order to have confidence that elections are truly free and fair, voters need to be assured of more than just a well-managed day of polling but rather a free and fair election process in its entirety. For an election to be free and fair, there should be a society that encourages citizens to vote, that provides space for political parties to work and campaign freely, an independent media and civil society, and a judiciary capable of acting with impartiality.
The Author is a Partner at KTA Advocates and heads the dispute resolution practice groups (Litigation, arbitration and private mediation).
He was admitted to the bar in 2008 as an Advocate of the High Court of Uganda and has a right of audience in the superior courts of the partner states of the East African Community.
He has acted for Electoral Commission of Uganda in various election petitions as external counsel leading the team of KTA Advocates in defence of EC in 2011 AND 2016 round of elections. He has also prosecuted a number of petitions.
Edwin Tabaro, Waziri wa Mambo ya Nje wa Uganda, alisema uchaguzi wa rais na bunge ulifanyika Januari 14, 2021. Hii ilifuatiwa na uchaguzi wa serikali za mitaa na uchaguzi wa makundi maalum ya maslahi. Kama ilivyo na mazoezi mengine yote, kulikuwa na mabishano. "Wateja wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa 2021 ambao hawakufurahishwa na matokeo na mchakato wa uchaguzi, maarufu kati yao walikuwa ""Petition ya Rais Robert Sentamu Kyagulanyi vs Yoweri Museveni Tabaragaba"" na ""Petition ya Rais ya Uchaguzi wa 2021.""" Ni wajibu wa kikatiba wa mahakama kutatua mabishano kama hayo ya uchaguzi kwa njia ya haki na uwazi kuhusiana na kanuni zilizowekwa na sheria. Hata hivyo, karatasi hii inashughulikia ombi katika ngazi ya bunge na serikali za mitaa ambazo zinatawaliwa na kanuni sawa. Sheria inayohusu maombi ya uchaguzi ni Sheria ya Uchaguzi wa Bunge na sheria zilizotengenezwa chini yake, Sheria ya Serikali za Mitaa ambayo inahusu Sheria ya Uchaguzi wa Bunge na sheria zinazotoa sheria za utaratibu katika Sheria ya PEA, na kwa kiasi kidogo sana sheria za utaratibu wa kiraia ambapo utaratibu haujatolewa na Sheria ya PEA. "Sheria ya Uganda haijulikani ni nini kinachohesabiwa kuwa uchaguzi wa ""huru na wa haki"" lakini ni sawa na sura ya nne ya katiba na sheria ya kesi." Katika kesi ya Rt Col Kizza Besigye v. H.E Yoweri Museveni No. 1 ya 2001 na No. 1 ya 2006, mahakama kuu ilisema kwamba: uchaguzi huru na wa haki ni ule ambao unawakilisha mapenzi ya wapiga kura. Kulingana na kifungu cha 1 cha Katiba ya Uganda ya mwaka 1995, wananchi wa Uganda wana uhuru wa kujitawala. Hii kwa hivyo inamaanisha kwamba serikali inapata mamlaka yake kutoka kwa mapenzi ya watu wa Uganda. "Kwa hiyo, nchi haiwezi kuwa ya kidemokrasia kabisa mpaka raia wake wawe na fursa ya kuchagua wawakilishi wao kupitia uchaguzi wa bure na wa haki. """ """Jitihada za maendeleo haziwezi kufanikiwa bila serikali halali na iliyochaguliwa kidemokrasia ambayo inajibu na kuwajibika kwa raia wake, ingawa vigezo vya kuhukumu ikiwa uchaguzi ni huru na wa haki vimeundwa katika muktadha mbalimbali, kuendeleza dhana za nadharia katika orodha kamili ya mambo imekuwa ngumu." Neno "free" linamaanisha uhuru wakati "fair" linamaanisha haki. Haki inamaanisha kutokuwa na upendeleo, usahihi (matumizi yasiyo na upendeleo wa sheria) na usawa (matumizi yasiyo sawa ya rasilimali zinazohusiana) Uchaguzi huchukuliwa kuwa huru na wa haki baada ya kuzingatia matukio yote kabla na baada ya siku ya kupiga kura. Kipindi cha baada ya uchaguzi kinahusisha kuhesabu kura, kutangaza matokeo ya uchaguzi na utunzaji wa malalamiko. """Ili kuwa na ujasiri kwamba uchaguzi ni huru na wa haki, wapiga kura wanahitaji kuwa na uhakika wa zaidi ya siku ya uchaguzi iliyoendeshwa vizuri, lakini mchakato wa uchaguzi wa bure na wa haki katika ukamilifu wake." """Kwa uchaguzi kuwa huru na wa haki, lazima kuwe na jamii inayowahimiza wananchi kupiga kura, ambayo hutoa nafasi kwa vyama vya kisiasa kufanya kazi na kampeni kwa uhuru, vyombo vya habari vya kujitegemea na jamii ya kiraia, na mahakama inayoweza kutenda kwa kutokuwa na upendeleo." Kwa kuongezea, uhuru fulani wa kiraia, kama vile uhuru wa kusema, muungano na mkusanyiko, pia unahitajika. Nitafikiria masuala muhimu ya utaratibu na hatua za kuchukua katika kufungua ombi. Mshtuko wa Uthibitisho Kama ilivyo katika kesi nyingi za kiraia, mzigo uko kwa mwombaji kuthibitisha madai katika ombi. Mahakama ya Juu katika kesi ya Kizza Besigye dhidi ya Museveni Yoweri na Maombi mengine ya Uchaguzi wa Rais Nambari 1 ya 2001 ilisema kuwa mzigo wa uthibitisho unakaa moja kwa moja na mwombaji kuthibitisha kile anachosema. "Kutokana na kifungu cha 101 cha Sheria ya Ushahidi, mahakama ilisema: ""Mtu anayeshtaki anawajibika kwa mashtaka yake, na ikiwa ana haki ya kupata msamaha, basi shtaka linamshughulisha na kushuhudia mashtaka hayo, ikiwa yatamzuia mtu huyo kufanya hivyo.""" Mahakama hiyo ilisisitiza kwamba upande ambao mzigo unamshika lazima uonyeshe kesi yake ili kuhalalisha kesi yake kwa kutosha kuhalalisha uamuzi kwa niaba yake ikiwa hakuna ushahidi mwingine uliotolewa kupinga. Kiwango cha uthibitisho Kiwango cha uthibitisho katika maombi ya uchaguzi ni juu kuliko moja katika masuala mengine ya kiraia. Kesi ya Kizza Besigye dhidi ya Museveni Yoweri na Maombi mengine ya Uchaguzi wa Rais Nambari 1 ya 2001 ilionyesha kuwa mwombaji ana kiwango kikubwa cha uthibitisho kuliko kesi za kawaida za kiraia kwa sababu anaomba mahakama kufuta matokeo ya uchaguzi wa mwombaji. """Hata hivyo, kiwango cha kuthibitisha mashtaka haya ni cha juu sana, karibu zaidi ya shaka ya busara." "Hii imewekwa na kifungu cha 61 (1) na inasema kwamba ""chaguo la mwanachama wa bunge litahifadhiwa mahali ambapo kutofuata sheria za uchaguzi huathiri matokeo kwa njia kubwa.""" Ingawa ni kweli kwamba katika kutumia mtihani wa umuhimu, mchakato mzima wa uchaguzi lazima uhesabiwe, mtu bado hawezi kukimbia kutoka kwa idadi. Katika BUSINGE FRED POLICE V KITHENDE KALIBOGHA & ANOR HCEP NO. "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika uamuzi wa Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama ya Mahakama.""" "Kwa mujibu wa sheria ya Uturuki, ""Kwa mahakama kuamua kama kutofuata sheria hiyo iliathiri matokeo kwa njia kubwa au la, ni lazima kuthibitishwa kwa kuridhisha kwa usawa wa uwezekano kwamba kutofuata sheria hiyo kulihesabiwa kuathiri matokeo kwa njia kubwa.""" Ili kuamua matokeo ya uchaguzi, mahakama inapaswa kuchunguza mchakato wote wa uchaguzi ili kuamua jinsi ulivyoathiri matokeo na kisha kuchunguza kiwango cha athari. Katika mchakato huu wa tathmini, haiwezi kusemwa kwamba idadi si muhimu kama vile hali ambayo zinazozalishwa idadi hizo, idadi ni muhimu katika kufanya marekebisho kwa ajili ya makosa <unk>. "Kama ilivyoelezwa na Odoki C.J. katika Col (Rtd) Dr. Besigye Kiiza (supra katika ukurasa 159) ""Kumbuka kwamba mtihani wa umuhimu hautumiki kwa b na c ambapo kosa limepatikana kuwa limefanywa.""" "Kifungu cha 64 cha Sheria ya Uchaguzi wa Bunge kinatoa ""mtazamo wa maombi ya uchaguzi kusikilizwa katika mahakama ya wazi na Mahakama Kuu na baada ya uchunguzi sahihi, kukataa ombi, kutangaza kwamba mgombea mwingine mgombea alitangaza kuchaguliwa alichaguliwa kwa halali, kuweka kando uchaguzi na kuagiza uchaguzi mpya.""" Utaratibu wa kesi hiyo umewekwa katika sheria ya 141-2 ya suala la uchaguzi wa bunge (maagizo ya muda) (mwito wa uchaguzi). Kesi ni kwa ushahidi wa kiapo na taarifa zote za kiapo zinachukuliwa kuwa zimesomwa wakati wa kufungua. Mfuatano wa maombi ni pamoja na kuwasilisha ombi pamoja na taarifa za kiapo za mwombaji na mashahidi wake, ambazo zinajibu na mwombaji ambaye anatoa jibu kwa ombi pamoja na majibu. Mwombaji anaweza kuwasilisha majibu ya kujibu. Anaweza pia kuwasilisha taarifa za ziada katika kesi ya ushahidi mpya ambao haujawasilishwa hapo awali au taarifa za ziada ili kufafanua au kuongeza mambo katika taarifa ya kiapo iliyowasilishwa tayari. Maombi ya kuhesabu upya: Maombi ya kuhesabu upya hufanywa kwa Hakimu Mkuu. "Sehemu ya 55 (1) ya Sheria ya Uchaguzi wa Bunge inatoa ""kufanya ndani ya siku saba baada ya tarehe ambayo afisa wa kurudi, kulingana na kifungu cha 58, amemtangaza kuwa amechaguliwa mgombea ambaye amepata idadi kubwa ya kura, mgombea yeyote anaweza kuomba kwa Mahakimu Mkuu kwa ajili ya kuhesabu tena.""" "Sura ya (2) inasema kwamba ""Mhakimu Mkuu ataweka wakati wa kuhesabu kura, wakati huo utakuwa ndani ya siku nne baada ya kupokea maombi chini ya kifungu cha (1) na kuhesabu upya kufanyika kulingana na maagizo ya Mkuu.""" Katika kesi ya Kasibante Musa dhidi ya Katongole Sign na ombi jingine la uchaguzi wa 23 ya 2011, ilisema kwamba mkuu katika kesi hii sio tu anaamuru kuhesabu tena, lakini pia anafanya kuhesabu tena na mwishoni mwa mchakato wa mahakama, jaji mkuu ataandaa na kusaini cheti cha agizo la kuhesabu tena na muhuri wa mahakama. "Kifungu cha 68 (1) cha Sheria ya Uchaguzi wa Bunge kinasema kwamba mtu ambaye kabla au wakati wa uchaguzi ana nia ya kushawishi mwingine kupiga kura au kujizuia kwa mgombea yeyote, anatoa au husababisha kupewa au kutoa pesa, zawadi au maoni mengine kwa mtu huyo, anafanya kosa la rushwa. """ Mahakama ya Juu ya Marekani katika kesi ya Kizza Besigye v. Y.K. Museveni ilisema kwamba kwa ajili ya uthibitisho wa rushwa, mwombaji lazima athibitishe mambo yafuatayo ili kuanzisha zoea haramu la kutoa zawadi. - Kwamba zawadi ilitolewa kwa mpiga kura. - Kwamba zawadi hiyo ilitolewa na mgombea au wakala wake - Kwamba zawadi hiyo ilitolewa ili kumshawishi mtu huyo kumpiga kura mgombea huyo. "Hata hivyo, kwa mujibu wa sheria ya uchaguzi, uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi wa uchaguzi.""" "Hata hivyo, kuna ushahidi wa kutosha kwamba tukio moja tu la udanganyifu wa uchaguzi wa mwaka huu (Odo Tayebawa dhidi ya Nasser Bashawala) linaweza kuhalalisha uchaguzi wa mwaka huu, na kwamba ""uhalifu wa rushwa"" unapatikana katika kifungu cha 68 cha Sheria ya Uchaguzi wa Bunge." "Kifungu cha 68 cha Sheria ya Uchaguzi wa Bunge kinasema kwamba ""mtu ambaye kabla au wakati wa uchaguzi, kwa nia ya kuathiri mtu mwingine kupiga kura au kutopiga kura kwa mgombea yeyote, hutoa au husababisha mtu mwingine kupata pesa au zawadi au maoni mengine, anafanya kosa la rushwa na ana hatia ya adhabu ya kifungo cha miaka mitatu au zaidi, au wote wawili. "" - Museveni v. Amari Kagabazi na E.G. Ntebe, EC, J.D. (Sahihari ya 84307)." (ii) Kifungu hicho kinahitaji kwamba mgombea awe na jukumu la vitendo vya mawakala wake tu wakati vinafanywa kwa maarifa yake na idhini au idhini. Kwa kiasi hiki kanuni za jumla za sheria ya wakala zimebadilishwa. "Kuhusu utamaduni haramu wa kutoa zawadi, Jaji Mkuu Odoki alisema katika uamuzi wake katika ukurasa wa 180: ""Ninakubali madai ya Mheshimiwa Bitangaro kwamba mwombaji lazima athibitishe viungo vifuatavyo ili kuanzisha utamaduni haramu wa kutoa zawadi: (i) kwamba zawadi ilitolewa kwa mpiga kura, (ii) kwamba zawadi ilitolewa na mgombea au wakala wake, (iii) kwamba zawadi ilitolewa ili kumshawishi mtu huyo kupiga kura kwa mgombea." "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika kifungu cha 68 cha Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria.""" "Kuhusu suala la uhusiano wa wakala kati ya mgombea na wawakilishi wake au mawakala, sheria inasema kwamba mgombea anawajibika tu kwa uthibitisho kwamba wakala alitenda kwa mamlaka ya wazi au ya wazi ya mgombea au kwamba mgombea alidhinisha kitendo hicho baada ya kufanywa au kumteua wakala kufanya vitendo vyote vya kisheria au kinyume cha sheria ambavyo anaweza kufikiria ni sahihi kuunga mkono maslahi ya mgombea. """ "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika kesi ya Odo Tayebwa dhidi ya Nasser Basijabalab, ""wakala"" ni mtu yeyote anayejishughulisha na mtu mwingine kwa makusudi yake, kwa idhini au idhini yake." "Sidhani kwamba maarifa ya awali na idhini ya wazi au ruhusa ya wazi au idhini ya mgombea ni hali ya lazima ya awali kwa Tume ya mazoea haramu au makosa mengine yoyote na mwakilishi au wakala kabla ya uchaguzi wa mgombea ni rendered liable kwa kufuta. """ "Kutokana na hali ya mambo, hakuna mgombea ambaye angeweza kutoa idhini au idhini kwa wakala wake kufanya vitendo haramu au makosa mengine ya uchaguzi, ""alisema JSC Mulenga, ""Chini ya kifungu hicho, ni wazi kwamba vitendo haramu au makosa mengine ambayo hayakufanywa na mgombea, yanaweza kuhifadhiwa kama msingi wa kufutwa kwa uchaguzi wake, tu ikiwa ni kwa kuridhika kwa mahakama kwamba ilitendwa kwa idhini ya mgombea na kwa maarifa yake au kwa maarifa yake, na hakuna mgombea aliye na haki ya kumtisha mgombea mwingine, bila kujali maoni au rangi ya kisiasa.""" "Kifungu cha kwanza cha katiba kinatoa mamlaka kwa watu kuelezea mapenzi yao ya bure katika kuamua viongozi wao wa kisiasa kupitia uchaguzi wa mara kwa mara. """ "Tisho au vitendo vya vitisho huingilia kati na hali ya amani na kuharibu mapenzi ya wapiga kura kuchagua viongozi wa uchaguzi wao. """ "Katika kifungu cha 80 cha Sheria ya Uchaguzi wa Bunge, ""uhalifu wa ushawishi usiofaa"" ni wakati mtu, moja kwa moja au kwa njia isiyo ya moja kwa moja, binafsi au kupitia mtu mwingine, anatumia au anatishia kutumia nguvu au vurugu, au anatoa au kutishia kutoa mtu au kupitia mtu mwingine, uharibifu wa kiroho au wa muda, uharibifu au hasara kwa mtu yeyote, ili kumshawishi au kumlazimisha mtu huyo kupiga kura au kujizuia kupiga kura." "Kifungu cha 76 (j) cha Sheria ya Uchaguzi wa Bunge kinasema kwamba mtu yeyote ambaye hana mamlaka ya kufanya hivyo chini ya Sheria hii, anafanya alama yoyote kwenye karatasi ya kura iliyotolewa kwa mtu mwingine, isipokuwa mtu anayefanya alama, kwa nia ya kwamba karatasi ya kura itatumiwa kurekodi kura ya mtu huyo mwingine, anafanya kosa. """ "Kutokana na uamuzi wa Mahakama ya Juu ya Marekani katika kesi ya Musungu Garuga v. Amara Mbabazi na ECHTC-05-CV-EPA-0003 ya mwaka 2001, Mahakama ya Juu ya Marekani ilitoa uamuzi wa Musungu Kibuka, J. katika kesi ya Winnie Babigouga v. Masiko Winnie Komuhangi na wengine HCCT-05-CV-EPA-0004 ya mwaka 2001 ambapo ilisema, ""uchaguzi lazima ufanywe chini ya hali ambazo zinawawezesha wapiga kura kutoa kura yao kama wanavyotaka, kwa hiari yao wenyewe.""" Hali lazima iwe kama hiyo ili kumwezesha mpiga kura kutoa kura yake kwa mgombea yeyote anayetaka kupiga kura. Haipaswi kuwa na kizuizi, unyanyasaji, kizuizi, vitisho au vitisho. Haipaswi kuwa na rushwa ya kumshawishi mpiga kura kwa njia moja au nyingine. "Hakuna hali yoyote ya kuunda hofu katika akili za wapiga kura kwa mateso au unyanyasaji baada ya uchaguzi kufanyika. """ "J. Egonda-Ntende, katika kesi ya Musinguzi Garuga v. Amara Mbabazi na EC (Supra) alisema kwamba ""Kutisha katika mchakato wa uchaguzi kunaweza, kama nilivyoonyesha, kuonekana katika aina mbalimbali, kutoka vitendo vya vurugu na unyanyasaji, hadi uvamizi wa siri ya kupiga kura.""" Inaweza kuathiri matokeo kwa njia mbili. Kwa njia moja, inaweza kuzuia ushindani wa haki kati ya au kati ya wagombea wanaopinga. "Kwa pili, inaweza kuwafanya wapiga kura wasipige kura kwa hiari yao, ama kwa kuwafanya wasipige kura au kupiga kura kwa mgombea ambao hawachagui kwa hiari.""" "Hii ni kosa ambalo linaweza kusababisha kuondolewa kwa uchaguzi chini ya kifungu 61 (1) (c).""" KUTALAMU MALAKI YA KUBALIKA Kila mtu ana haki ya kuwa na jina zuri. "Kwa hiyo, hakuna mgombea au msaidizi wake ana haki ya kufanya taarifa za kudhalilisha lengo la kuharibu picha ya mwingine kati ya macho ya wapiga kura. """ Katika kesi ya Aggrey Awori Siryoyi dhidi ya Mugeni Stephen na Tume ya Uchaguzi EP 5 ya 2006, Jaji Katusili alifafanua neno "kutamka" kama:... kuchapisha au kuweka mbele. <unk>Neno <unk>publish<unk> linafafanuliwa na kamusi hiyo hiyo kama: <unk>Kufanya umma; kuzunguka, kujulisha watu kwa ujumla. Kutolewa, kuwekwa katika mzunguko. "Kutoka kwa kesi ya ""Amama Mbabazi dhidi ya Yoweri Museveni na wengine"" ya uchaguzi wa urais wa 2016 mahakama kuu ilisema kuwa kiwango cha uthibitisho ni juu ya usawa wa uwezekano na kwamba maneno yaliyotajwa lazima yawe na maana iliyoambatanishwa nao dhidi ya mwombaji." Mahakama hiyo pia ilisema mahakama lazima iwe makini katika kutofautisha maneno ya aibu na alama za kudhalilisha kwa kuwa kampeni za kisiasa zinapingwa sana. Inapaswa kusisitizwa zaidi kwamba haki ya uhuru wa kujieleza, hasa katika kampeni za uchaguzi, haipaswi kukandamizwa. "Sehemu ya 21 (2) ya Sheria ya Utekelezaji wa Sheria inasema: ""Isipokuwa kwa sheria nyingine yoyote, kila mgombea atafurahia uhuru kamili na usio na vizuizi wa kujieleza na upatikanaji wa habari katika utumiaji wa haki ya kampeni chini ya Sheria hii.""" Sheria hiyo imewekwa katika kifungu cha 23 (2) cha Sheria ya Uchaguzi wa Rais na katika kifungu cha 23 (2) cha Sheria ya Uchaguzi wa Rais. Koloni Dk Kizza Besigye dhidi ya E.C. na nyingine SC.EP No. "Kutokana na uamuzi huo, Mahakama ya Juu ya Marekani imetoa uamuzi wa kuamua kuwa sheria hiyo inapaswa kuondolewa katika sheria ya uchaguzi wa rais, ambayo inatajwa katika kifungu cha 21 cha sheria hiyo ya uchaguzi wa rais.""" "Kutumia kura kwa njia ya kukusanya kura ni kosa la kisheria, na sheria ya uchaguzi ya Bunge ya Marekani, ambayo inataja ""kujaza kura kwa njia ya kukusanya kura"" katika kifungu cha 76 (f) cha Sheria ya Uchaguzi ya Bunge, inatoa sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria." "Kama ilivyoelezwa hapo juu, mtu ambaye kwa kujua na makusudi anaweka katika sanduku la kura kitu kingine chochote isipokuwa karatasi ya kura ambayo yeye au yeye ni mamlaka ya kuweka ndani, anafanya kosa. """ "Kutumia kura kwa njia ya ""kujaza"" ilitajwa katika Toolkit Simon Akecha v. Oulanya Jacob L'Okory na EPA nyingine No. "Kutumia ""kujaza kura"" ni kosa la uchaguzi ambalo linahusisha kupiga kura mara nyingi katika kituo cha kupiga kura au kuhamia vituo mbalimbali vya kupiga kura, na kupiga kura kwa majina ya watu ambao hawakuwapo kabisa au wale ambao wamekufa au hawapo wakati wa kupiga kura, na bado wameandikwa kuwa wamechagua." Kwa mfano, mwisho wa uchaguzi, idadi ya kura zilizotolewa inapaswa kuwa sawa na idadi ya watu ambao walikuja kupiga kura. "Sheria ya 51 ya Sheria ya Uchaguzi wa Bunge inatoa fomu ya taarifa ambayo inapaswa kusainiwa na afisa anayesimamia kituo cha kupiga kura na wawakilishi wa wagombea. """ "Ikiwa fomu ya DR inaonyesha wazi kwamba kulikuwa na tofauti na makosa yanayohusiana na kupiga kura na kutangazwa kwa matokeo katika mkoa wa uchaguzi ambayo yanatosha kuharibu matokeo katika mkoa huo, basi uchaguzi katika kituo hicho cha kupiga kura unakanuliwa. """ Tofauti hizo zinatia ndani hesabu zisizo sahihi, kura nyingi zilizotolewa kuliko wale waliosajiliwa katika kituo cha kupiga kura. Katika KAKOOZA JOHN BAPTIST VERSE ELECTOAL COMMISSION AND AND ELECTION APPLE NO. "Kanyihamba alisema: ""Kuhusu madai kwamba afisa wa uchaguzi au mawakala wake walishindwa kusaini fomu za taarifa, ninakubaliana na wakili wa mwombaji kwamba ni mahitaji ya kisheria kwa afisa anayesimamia kituo cha kupiga kura kusaini fomu za DR na kutimiza mahitaji yote yaliyo katika kifungu cha 50 cha Sheria ya Uchaguzi wa Bunge ya 2005." Hata hivyo, siamini kwamba ni lazima kila mgombea au wakala wake wa uchaguzi kwanza apewe au apokee nakala ya kila fomu ya taarifa kabla ya matokeo yote kutangazwa na kuthibitishwa. """Kwa maoni yangu, matokeo ya uchaguzi yanapaswa kutangazwa mara moja baada ya kuhesabiwa na saini ya fomu za DR na afisa wa kurudi na watu wengine husika kulingana na sheria husika."" - Rais wa Uganda, Rais wa Uganda, Rais wa Uganda, Rais wa Uganda, Rais wa Uganda, Rais wa Uganda, Rais wa Uganda, Rais wa Uganda, Rais wa Uganda." """Ili kuwa na ujasiri kwamba uchaguzi ni huru na wa haki, wapiga kura wanahitaji kuwa na uhakika wa zaidi ya siku ya uchaguzi iliyoendeshwa vizuri, lakini mchakato wa uchaguzi wa bure na wa haki katika ukamilifu wake." """Kwa uchaguzi kuwa huru na wa haki, lazima kuwe na jamii inayowahimiza wananchi kupiga kura, ambayo hutoa nafasi kwa vyama vya kisiasa kufanya kazi na kampeni kwa uhuru, vyombo vya habari vya kujitegemea na jamii ya kiraia, na mahakama inayoweza kutenda kwa kutokuwa na upendeleo." Mshauri ni Mshirika katika KTA Advocates na anaongoza makundi ya mazoezi ya utatuzi wa migogoro (Madai, usuluhishi na upatanishi wa kibinafsi). Aliandikishwa katika baraza la wanasheria la mahakama ya Uganda mwaka 2008 na ana haki ya kusikiliza katika mahakama za juu za nchi wanachama wa Jumuiya ya Afrika Mashariki. Aliwahi kuwakilisha Tume ya Uchaguzi ya Uganda katika maombi mbalimbali ya uchaguzi kama mshauri wa nje akiongoza timu ya KTA Advocates katika utetezi wa Tume ya Uchaguzi katika uchaguzi wa 2011 na 2016. Pia ameshtakiwa kwa ajili ya maombi kadhaa.