Previous 12 / 33 Next

past. The 1st respondent in paragraph 9 of his affidavit on 25th March 2011 stated: “That I submitted all my aforesaid qualifications for equating and verification with the Uganda National Examination Board for the 2001 parliamentary elections and UNEB cleared me, which election I won. A copy of the UNEB letter of clearance and the Gazette containing the UNEB clearance will be produced at the hearing.” The letter and the gazette were not produced at the hearing. 10 The evidence as a whole clearly shows that in 2010 the 3rd respondent did not consult UNEB about the academic papers of the 1st respondent. The reason for this lack of consultation was explained by Ms Bukirwa(RW1) to the effect that in 2005 or thereabouts the stakeholders who included the Ministry of Education, UNEB and the 3rd respondent held a general consultation on equating of academic papers. As a result of this general consultation, general guidelines were issued by UNEB. They are contained in a document which was annexed to Bukirwa’s affidavit as annexture IN 9. On the basis of this document and probably many others the 3rd respondent issued a statutory instrument titled The Universities and Other Tertiary 20 Institutions (Equation of Degrees, Diplomas and Certificates) RegulationsS.I.No.84/05. The instrument was issued under sections 5(k) and 123(2) of the Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act No.7/2001. The sections give the 3rd respondent the mandate to equate academic qualifications. It is now necessary to examine the evidence of consultations between UNEB and the 3rd respondent regarding the academic qualifications of the 1st 12

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Mwiru v. Samson

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the respondent’s education failed to meet the requirements for candidacy. If so, whether the respondent’s election as a Member of Parliament should be annulled.

Alleged Acts: After the February 18, 2011 election results were announced, the appellant challenged the outcome on the grounds that the respondent was not a qualified candidate at the time of his election as a Member of Parliament. In particular, the appellant argues that the respondents education did not meet the standards to run for office. The appellant makes a secondary argument that the respondent and his agents committed numerous election offenses, but does not name them specifically.

Procedural history: The appellant sought that the election results be annulled and the runner-up declared the Member of Parliament or a fresh election ordered. The respondent denies all charges and asks for dismissal of the action. The lower court dismissed the petition and required that each party pay its own costs.

Summary: The appellant argues that because the academic qualifications were completed outside of Uganda, they did not necessarily meet the equivalent of requirements. He appellant further contends that the respondent did not consult with the National Council for Higher Education to determined that degrees were actually equivalents. The respondent stated that he did not do so because he had in prior elections. The statutory framework requires consultation, however, the court determined that prior or general consultation is not sufficient to equate the education component. The appellant presented evidence or bribery, but the lower court dismissed the claim after the respondent simply denied the claim. The evidence included promising and agents delivering welding machines for voters to registered voters. The absence of any documentation or any contradictory evidence was insufficient for the trial judge to combat this claim.

Conclusion: court determined that lower court placed a high burden of proof on the appellant, that the respondent lacked the equivalent academic qualifications, and committed bribery. The election results annulled and order fresh elections.

Legal Issue(s)

Disputing Results
Electoral Integrity

Applicable Law(s): Parliamentary Elections Act sec. 4, 60, 61(a),(c), & (d), 62, & 63.

Region: Africa

Country: Uganda

Language of Decision

English

Court: Appellate Court

Election Type: Parliamentary

Date of decision: Jun 28, 2011

Geolocation

Latitude: 0.305568717

Longitude: 32.48922821

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

court-appeal-2011-9.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Mwiru v. Samson

Primary Documents

Notifications