the 10,000/= which Namwandu Zziwa says was given to her by the 2nd appellant was not a bribe, why didn’t he talk about it, at least during cross-examination? Bribery at Walusubi village According to Lukwago, counsel for the appellants attacked the finding of the trial judge on two fronts: 1. Asadi Dembe is not a credible witness, for he swore two affidavits and he was partisan as a campaign agent and supervisor of the petitioner/respondent. 2. That the respondent’s evidence, particularly the affidavit of Mugambwa Hamzah, did not disclose the recipients’ identity and whether they were registered voters in the Constituency. That how would a bribe be offered to a village? Regarding the 1st question, Mr. Lukwago submitted that it is not at all true that Asadi Dembe was a campaign agent and supervisor of the petitioner/respondent. He pointed out that the 1st affidavit signed by Asadi Ddembe was prepared by the 2nd appellant. In that regard counsel wondered how Asadi could become a campaign agent and supervisor of the respondent! Mr. Lukwago further contended that if the argument of counsel for the appellants that Asadi Ddembe is not credible because he swore two affidavits, is to carry weight, then they are conceding that the affidavit the 2nd appellant allegedly swore in reply to that of Mugambwa Hamuzah should have been expunged from the record. Mr. Lukwago further pointed out that the witness was summoned for cross-examination but the 2nd appellant opted not to cross-examine him for fear that the witness was going to spill beans. In counsel’s view, the trial judge rightly observed that the affidavit in rejoinder by the witness was never rebutted. Counsel for the appellants contend further that the petitioner’s evidence, particularly the affidavit of Mugambwa Hamuzah, did not disclose the recipients’ identity and whether they were registered voters in the constituency. That how could a bribe be