offered to a village? In his answer, Mr. Lukwago cited the case of Hon. Mukasa Philip Lulume (supra) in which it was held, inter alias, thus: “Mr. Mungoma submitted and I agree with him that the evidence of the respondent did not mention the individual voters who received money. Mr. Katiisa who was a chief campaign agent of the appellant must have been a registered voter. He knew the voters and he received the money from the appellant knowing the purpose for which it was intended. In my view the offence is complete the moment the money was accepted by Katiisa”. In another case of Kirunda Kiveijinja (supra), Court observed, inter alia that: “……… it is common knowledge that every village has registered voters because every village is a polling station. A donation to a village in a constituency by a candidate who is seeking votes would be targeting the registered voters in that village and those who can influence them to vote…….”. In counsel’s view, the decisions in these cases answer the questions raised by counsel for the appellants. Bribery at Wakiso Trading Centre Mr. Lukwago submitted that the learned trial judge was justified in finding that the 2nd appellant gave a bribe of Shs.100,000/= to a group of people at a public gathering at Wakiso trading centre. The evidence on record proved that the bribe was given to Kakande John Wycliff to distribute. Mr. Lukwago pointed out that the evidence of Kakande John Wycliff was disbelieved because he was not reliable. As for the question of a bribe being offered to a group, Mr. Lukwago reiterated the authorities of Hon. Mukasa Anthony Harris (supra) and Hon. Kirunda Kiveijinja (supra) respectively. Bribery at Kitega village Mr. Lukwago submitted that the learned trial judge properly evaluated the evidence on record and made a correct finding that the 2nd appellant gave out bribes in form of