Previous 13 / 33 Next

respondent. The evidence was given by Bukirwa an advocate and legal officer of the 3rd respondent. In her affidavit dated 28th March 2011. The following paragraphs are relevant: “3. That the 1st respondent before contesting for Parliamentary Election in 2006presented his academic qualification for equating and verification (see annexture A, B, C&D). 4. That NCHE wrote a letter to UNEB for verification of the 1st respondent’s qualifications (see annexture E) 10 5. That UNEB duly replied confirming the genuineness of the 1st respondent’s ‘O’ Level (see annexture ‘F’) 6. I verily believe by virtue of my knowledge of the law that once there is proper verification by UNEB, there need not be fresh consultation on the same qualifications for every new elections.” 20 The witness was cross-examined. On consultation with UNEB she said: “For ‘O’ Level in the present case we consulted UNEB, for the foreign qualifications, we consulted Oklahoma State University and the U,S Council for Higher Education and Accreditation. Before issuing a certificate of equivalence NCHE consults UNEB on the totality of a candidate’s qualifications. In 2006 and 2010 NCHE consulted UNEB on the totality of the 1st respondent’s qualifications.” 30 In order to determine whether there was consultation between the 3rd respondent and UNEB, I think it is necessary to evaluate the evidence of what actually occurred. The affidavit of Bukirwa had a number of annextures to it. One of them was a letter dated 10th January 2006 addressed to the Secretary Uganda 13

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