Iam not persuaded by the case put forward by the 3rd respondent when it claims that once it issues a certificate for one election, the certificate is valid for future elections. This would tantamount to amending the law. Equating of academic papers for purposes of elections is not a once life time exercise unless the law is amended. The evidence on record prove that there was no consultation between UNEB and the 3rd respondent on the totality of the 1st respondent’s academic qualification before the issuance of the certificate dated 4 th August 2010. The only inquiry which the 3rd respondent made with regard to the 1st respondent’s academic papers concerned the authenticity of his ‘O’ certificate. UNEB replied 10 to that query. It stated that the ‘O’ level certificate was genuine. This inquiry in my view did not satisfy the requirements of the law. There was no other evidence showing the participation of UNEB in the equating exercise The fourth issue of appeal would succeed. I shall now consider the 5th ground of appeal on bribery. Mr Tebyasa submitted on this ground on behalf of the appellant. He stated that the allegations of bribery were proved on a balance of probabilities and the learned judge was wrong to hold otherwise. In particular he pointed out that the electricity connection was carried out during the campaigns. He claimed that the 20 1st respondent was a liar when he stated that he learnt about the electricity connection during his door to door campaigns and that it was part of Government programme. 16