Previous 18 / 33 Next

Section 68 of the PEA makes provisions for illegal practices. For purpose of the instant appeal it provides as follows: 10 “(1) A person who, either or during an election with intent, either directly or indirectly to influence another person to vote or to refrain from voting for any candidate, gives or provides or causes to be provided any money, gift or other consideration to that other person, commits an offence of bribery and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding seventy currency points or imprisonment not exceeding three years or both. (2)A person who receives any money, gift or other consideration under subsection (1) also commits an offence of illegal practice under this section. The provisions of the section make the giver and recipient guilty of an illegal practice. The commission of an illegal practice once proved to the satisfaction of the court is sufficient ground in itself under section 61 of PEA to set aside the election of a candidate as a Member of Parliament. It is therefore essential in allegations of bribery for the party alleging the same to prove on a balance of probabilities that the person or the persons allegedly bribed were registered voters. See Harris Mukasa v Dr Lulume BayigaElection Petition Appeal No.18/07(SC) Bakaluba Peter Mukasa v Nambooze 20 Betty Bakileke-Election Petition Appeal No.4/09(SC), and Fred Badda v Prof. Muyanda Mutebi –EPA No.21/07(SC) all unreported. I shall now re-examine the evidence of bribery made against the 1st respondent personally and determine whether they were proved to the satisfaction of the court. I shall commence with welding and spraying machines. 18

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