iv) As for the assertion that the relationship between one Lukabwe and the 2nd appellant, Mr. Lukwago pointed out that the name Lukabwe was introduced at the trial by Namwandu Zziwa who invited him together with the 2nd appellant to come to her home and meet disabled and elderly voters. When asked about the role of Lukabwe in the 2nd appellant’s campaign, she responded as follows: “He was the one looking for votes. That is the reason I invited both of them”. v) The contention that the learned trial Judge made no reference to the other two witnesses; Oguzwa David and Maali Kawalaata, Mr. Lukwago hastened to point out that there were two acts of bribery at Nakumbo village. The first one was at the home of Namwandu Zziwa, and the second one was at Birato’s home. Counsel pointed out that the affidavit of Maali Kawalaata was specifically about the act of bribery at Birato’s home. According to counsel, the trial judge made no findings against the 2nd appellant on that incident. In the premises, there is no legal grievance suffered by the 2nd appellant. The same applies to the affidavit of Oguzwa David which dealt with events of 7th March 2006, long after the elections. vi) The contention that the trial judge stated that it was the 2nd appellant who gave the 10,000/=, Mr. Lukwago submitted that the record is clear that Namwandu Zziwa said that she received the 10,000/= from the 2nd appellant. vii) Mr. Lukwago submitted that the argument that the judge was wrong to blame the 2nd appellant for not mentioning the 10,000/= since it was not mentioned in the affidavit, he was replying to is equally untenable. According to counsel, in pointing out the said fact, the trial Judge was pointing out discrepancies in the totality of the 2nd appellant’s evidence which pointed to deliberate falsehood. Mr. Lukwago asked, if