Court rejects petition against VP Ssekandi

By Andante Okanya and Hilary Nsambu

THE Constitutional Court has this Friday rejected a Constitutional Petition that sought to have vice president Edward Ssekandi removed from office over allegations by his political rival Jude Mbabali, that he misused official government vehicles during the 2011 parliamentary campaigns.

A panel of five Justices rejected the petition on the premise that Mbabali's grievance was not one that warranted Constitutional interpretation.

The panel of five Justices consisted of Remmy Kasule, Eldad Mwanguhya, Opio Aweri, Kenneth Kakuru, and Solome Balungi Bbosa.

Mbabaali was also ordered to pay costs to Ssekandi. The rivals were present in court and exchanged pleasantries, had a chat before the judgement was delivered.

The petition arose on June 20, 2012. Jude Mbabaali purports that during the campaigns for the Bukoto County Central seat, at the time Ssekandi was Speaker of Parliament, he breached the Parliamentary Elections Act 2005 and the Constitution.

Ssekandi's lead lawyer Kiwanuka Kiryowa, assisted by Thomas Ochaya, were present in court. Mbabaali's lawyers were Frederick Ssemwanga and Alex Candia.

Kakuru prepared the lead judgment. The other judges stated that they had read Kakuru’s judgment and concurred with its contents.

“I therefore find that this petition does not raise issues for Constitutional interpretation under Article 137 of the Constitution. This court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this matter,” Kakuru stated.

Mbabaali claimed Ssekandi diverted five government vehicles and fuel estimated at sh120m, plus government employees and other facilities attached to the office of the Speaker, for his campaign activities.

Mbabaali listed the vehicles as UG 0080H, UG 0163H, UG 0062H and UG 0069H, plus a police truck, registration number UP 2601. He asserts that the truck’s loud siren and bright lights purportedly attracted voters’ attention to Ssekandi.

In addition, he wanted Ssekandi barred from contesting for elective office for seven years, as prescribed in the Leadership Code.

But the court agreed with Ssekandi’s lawyer Kiwanuka Kiryowa’s submission that Mbabaali was abusing court process by disguising an earlier withdrawn election petition as a Constitutional petition.

He was referring to an election petition against Ssekandi that Mbabaali withdrew on July 27, 2011. Kiryowa asserted that Mbabaali’s petition was filed in a wrong court, since election disputes are a preserve of the High Court.

Speaking outside court, Ssekandi said he deserved to be awarded costs, as Mbabaali had inconvenienced him. The costs are yet to be compiled by Ssekandi’s legal team.

“This was the most hopeless case I have ever seen in my life. From the very beginning, I saw that the case contained nothing,” Ssekandi said.

Mbabaali said he would appeal to the Supreme Court.