News
Why court has ordered fresh election of Kagadi district speaker
Citing legal gaps in the Local Government Act concerning the district speaker elections, the judge has strongly recommended the amendment of Section 11 of the Act to introduce a ballot management framework modelled on the corresponding provisions of the Parliamentary Elections Act.
The judge said the practice is unacceptable in a democracy like Uganda that takes electoral integrity seriously.
By: Farooq Kasule, Journalist @New Vision
HOIMA - The High Court in Hoima City has ordered a fresh election for the position of Kagadi District Speaker after dismissing a judicial review application that had been filed by Francis Jamada Magezi.
Magezi of the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) was seeking to be declared the duly elected district speaker, arguing that two of his votes that would have given him the more than 50% threshold as provided for under the law were irrationally rejected by the presiding chief magistrate, Nazifah Namayanja.
He claimed that one of the rejected votes bore the name “Jamuda” while the other “Jamada Amooti”.
However, in a ruling delivered on Wednesday (July 1), acting High Court judge Vincent Opyene dismissed the application on grounds that the two ballot papers in question were not produced in court for their inscriptions to be verified.
He claimed that one of the rejected votes bore the name “Jamuda” while the other “Jamada Amooti”.
However, in a ruling delivered on Wednesday (July 1), acting High Court judge Vincent Opyene dismissed the application on grounds that the two ballot papers in question were not produced in court for their inscriptions to be verified.
“The application is hereby dismissed. An order is hereby issued directing the Kagadi district local government through its presiding officers to cause the election of the district speaker to be repeated between Francis Jamada Magezi and Vincent Ssemuga being the two candidates that polled the highest votes on May 21,” the judge said.
Magezi wanted the judge to issue prerogative orders of certiorari and mandamus for him to be recognised as the duly elected district speaker.
The judge directed that the election should be conducted within seven days from the date of the ruling.
However, drawing from the favour-voter principle, the judge said where a voter’s intention can be reasonably ascertained from the face of the ballot, such a ballot ought not to be rejected for a trifling misspelling.
Given that the matter raised serious points of law, the judge ordered each party to bear its own costs. Kagadi District Local Government was the respondent in the matter.
Joshua Serugendo from the Attorney General’s Hoima regional office represented the Kagadi District Local Government in the matter.
Court records indicate that Magezi had polled 32 votes while Ssemuga garnered 28 votes from the electoral college of 65 district councillors in the now nullified electoral exercise. Five votes were declared invalid by the presiding chief magistrate.
As a result, the chief magistrate had ordered for a repeat election as none of the candidates had obtained the more than 50% threshold.
However, in the process, the supporters of both candidates turned rowdy, prompting the chief magistrate to suspend the exercise.
Before the repeat exercise could be done, Magezi filed the application for adjudication in court.
Citing legal gaps in the Local Government Act concerning the district speaker elections, the judge has strongly recommended the amendment of Section 11 of the Act to introduce a ballot management framework modelled on the corresponding provisions of the Parliamentary Elections Act.
“The dispute before this court arose in large measure not from any wrongdoing by either candidate or the presiding officer but from a gap in the legislative framework,” said Justice Opyene.
He observed that while Section 11 of the Local Government Act mandates a secret ballot for the election of the district speaker, it provides no statutory machinery for the printing of the candidates’ names on the ballot paper, custody, verification and preservation of the ballot material.
“The result is that no ballot box was required to exist, no counterfoil register was required to be kept, no chain of custody was required to be maintained, and no mechanism existed for independent post-election scrutiny.
“When inevitably, a dispute arose about individual ballots, the court found itself without the primary evidence necessary to resolve it.”
The judge said the practice is unacceptable in a democracy like Uganda that takes electoral integrity seriously.
“The mandate of secret ballot without the machinery of ballot scrutiny is an invitation to exactly the kind of dispute that has arisen here.
The judge has directed the local government ministry to tentatively issue administrative guidelines pending the legislative amendment of the law, prescribing minimum standards for the conduct of the district speaker elections, including the measures contained in the ruling.
“The presiding officers convening speaker elections under the present legal framework should voluntarily adopt the best practices from the Electoral Commission’s (EC) procedures until such time as legislative reform is enacted,” the judge guided.
He noted that the secrecy of the ballot is not a mere procedural formality but the cornerstone of democratic governance.
“The statutory secrecy of the ballot is designed to protect the integrity of the democratic process against intimidation, corruption and subsequent interference.
"One of the consequences of a secret ballot is that no councillor’s individual vote may be traced to him or her and no candidate can demonstrate that a particular vote was cast in their favour."
Defects in law
Section 11(2) of the Local Government Act requires that the speaker and deputy speaker of a district council be elected through a secret ballot.
Section 11 (11) of the Local Government Act places the chief magistrate in a district in charge of convening and presiding over the elections.
However, the law is entirely silent on the mechanics of the ballot as it prescribes no procedure for the printing, numbering or accounting for the ballot papers, chain of custody of the ballot boxes, no method for verifying eligible voters against ballot cast or mechanism for sealing, counting or preserving the ballots for post-election scrutiny.
“The practical consequences of this is that in a dispute of this nature, there is no ballot box this court can order opened, no register of counterfoils it can order produced and no chain of custody it can test for tampering or irregularity because none was required to exist,” said Justice Opyene.
Magezi wanted the judge to issue prerogative orders of certiorari and mandamus for him to be recognised as the duly elected district speaker.
The judge directed that the election should be conducted within seven days from the date of the ruling.
However, drawing from the favour-voter principle, the judge said where a voter’s intention can be reasonably ascertained from the face of the ballot, such a ballot ought not to be rejected for a trifling misspelling.
Given that the matter raised serious points of law, the judge ordered each party to bear its own costs. Kagadi District Local Government was the respondent in the matter.
Joshua Serugendo from the Attorney General’s Hoima regional office represented the Kagadi District Local Government in the matter.
Court records indicate that Magezi had polled 32 votes while Ssemuga garnered 28 votes from the electoral college of 65 district councillors in the now nullified electoral exercise. Five votes were declared invalid by the presiding chief magistrate.
As a result, the chief magistrate had ordered for a repeat election as none of the candidates had obtained the more than 50% threshold.
However, in the process, the supporters of both candidates turned rowdy, prompting the chief magistrate to suspend the exercise.
Before the repeat exercise could be done, Magezi filed the application for adjudication in court.
Citing legal gaps in the Local Government Act concerning the district speaker elections, the judge has strongly recommended the amendment of Section 11 of the Act to introduce a ballot management framework modelled on the corresponding provisions of the Parliamentary Elections Act.
“The dispute before this court arose in large measure not from any wrongdoing by either candidate or the presiding officer but from a gap in the legislative framework,” said Justice Opyene.
He observed that while Section 11 of the Local Government Act mandates a secret ballot for the election of the district speaker, it provides no statutory machinery for the printing of the candidates’ names on the ballot paper, custody, verification and preservation of the ballot material.
“The result is that no ballot box was required to exist, no counterfoil register was required to be kept, no chain of custody was required to be maintained, and no mechanism existed for independent post-election scrutiny.
“When inevitably, a dispute arose about individual ballots, the court found itself without the primary evidence necessary to resolve it.”
The judge said the practice is unacceptable in a democracy like Uganda that takes electoral integrity seriously.
“The mandate of secret ballot without the machinery of ballot scrutiny is an invitation to exactly the kind of dispute that has arisen here.
The judge has directed the local government ministry to tentatively issue administrative guidelines pending the legislative amendment of the law, prescribing minimum standards for the conduct of the district speaker elections, including the measures contained in the ruling.
“The presiding officers convening speaker elections under the present legal framework should voluntarily adopt the best practices from the Electoral Commission’s (EC) procedures until such time as legislative reform is enacted,” the judge guided.
He noted that the secrecy of the ballot is not a mere procedural formality but the cornerstone of democratic governance.
“The statutory secrecy of the ballot is designed to protect the integrity of the democratic process against intimidation, corruption and subsequent interference.
"One of the consequences of a secret ballot is that no councillor’s individual vote may be traced to him or her and no candidate can demonstrate that a particular vote was cast in their favour."
Defects in law
Section 11(2) of the Local Government Act requires that the speaker and deputy speaker of a district council be elected through a secret ballot.
Section 11 (11) of the Local Government Act places the chief magistrate in a district in charge of convening and presiding over the elections.
However, the law is entirely silent on the mechanics of the ballot as it prescribes no procedure for the printing, numbering or accounting for the ballot papers, chain of custody of the ballot boxes, no method for verifying eligible voters against ballot cast or mechanism for sealing, counting or preserving the ballots for post-election scrutiny.
“The practical consequences of this is that in a dispute of this nature, there is no ballot box this court can order opened, no register of counterfoils it can order produced and no chain of custody it can test for tampering or irregularity because none was required to exist,” said Justice Opyene.