the proper candidate to whom the vote should be given, that act cannot be held to be one which interferes with the free exercise of the electoral, right.” [321] The test of undue influence is therefore, whether the 3rd respondent’s conduct, if satisfactorily proved, created an impression in the mind of a voter that adverse consequences would follow as a result of their exercise of their political choices. In applying that test we cannot however ignore the deposition of Dr. Kibicho who impugned the alleged non-impartiality on the part of two Chiefs who are public officers. Thus the 3rd respondent’s statement above, must also be tested against the testimony of Dr. Kibicho which evidence has not been controverted. [322] In the above context therefore, has a case been made against the 3rd respondent, for the commission of the offence of undue influence within the required standard of proof? Have the petitioners dispelled the 3rd respondent’s position that he was merely giving a directive that it was against the law for a public officer to openly take political positions in support of one candidate against the other? In this context, words alone, without any other demonstrable evidence are not sufficient to enable this Court make a conclusive finding on this issue. Further, we note that the evidence of Dr. Kibicho, explaining the context within which the 3rd respondent uttered the said words, remains undisputed. Consequently, after carefully considering the evidence before us, we hold that the petitioners have not proved their case on this issue to the required standard. Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            139  |  P a g e