______________

KAMPALA - The former aspirants of the East African Legislative Assembly (EALA) have asked court to nullify the elections, citing ballot stuffing and selective voting outside plenary.

The petitioners also purport that the elections were marred with irregularities and fraud. They are Gilbert Agaba, Josephine Lolem, Salaama Adelaide Nakitende and Lauben Muhangi Bwengye.

“The EALA election was not free and fair. It was undemocratic since the Speaker of Parliament, Anita Among created an unlevelled playing field for all the candidates in the race,” Agaba said.

The petitioners’ submissions are contained in a document submitted at the Civil Division of the High Court on April 4, 2024. The court is being presided over by Justice Emmanuel Baguma.

The petitioners’ lawyer Jude Byamukama on April 9, 2024, served the submissions to the respondents including the Attorney General.

Others include the Speaker of Parliament Annet Anita Among, Clerk to Parliament Adolf Mwesige Kasaija, Rose Akol Okullu, Dennis Namara, James Kakooza, George Odongo, Paul Mwasa Musamali, Veronica Babirye, Mary Mugenyi, Jacqueline Amongin and Gerald Siranda Blacks.

The respondents are represented by Joseph Kyazze, Apollo Katumba, Justin Semuyaba, Elizabeth Namakula, Solomon Kirunda, Moses Akena, and Achilles Lubega.

The respondents are expected to file a response to the petitioner’s submissions by May 2, 2024, and serve the petitioners on the same date. In the event of a rejoinder by Byamukama, it must be filed by May 16.

In their submissions, the petitioners contend that there was non-compliance with the treaty for the establishment of the EALA and the electoral laws during the conduct of the elections.

They also purport that the election made a farce of the democratic principles and that it was a mere spurious imitation of elections.

“Failure to conduct an election according to the laid down rules and representation renders it void,” Byamukama argues.

Justice Baguma will deliver judgment on the matter on July 16, 2024, by email at 3:00 pm.

Background

The petitioners participated in the election of EALA members held on September 29, 2022, and lost.

Subsequently, they petitioned the court alleging several illegalities and irregularities in the election process.

In their petition, they argue that the way the election of the EALA members was conducted infringes on the EAC treaty, the EALA Elections Act, and the Ugandan Constitution.

Petitioner Agaba swore an affidavit, stating that the election process was not transparent, citing ballot stuffing.

He contends that the Speaker of Parliament, who was the returning officer, was biased because she directly campaigned for some of the candidates.

Agaba is also aggrieved because he was denied access to the information connected to the actual tally of results and the register of voters used for identifying the MPs who voted.

Meanwhile, Lolem's complaint pointed to the Speaker’s decision to conduct the elections and campaigns concurrently, a decision that she contends denied her and other candidates a fair opportunity to canvass for support from the MPs.

Nakitende said she was prevented from accessing the polling stations on the election day, and that some of her agents were harassed and arrested by security personnel.

Muhangi highlighted that almost all the elected members of the EALA belonged to the same political party, the National Resistance Movement.

He said the only independent candidate who won was also allied to the ruling party, contrary to Article 50 of the EAC treaty and Rule 12 of the Rules of Procedure of Parliament.

Defence

In defence, a representative of the Attorney General, George Kallemera insisted that the pre-voting process was open and transparent to all candidates.

“Every eligible Member of Parliament who was present during the allocated time was free to cast their vote without any hindrance,” he argued.

Kallemera denied allegations that the Speaker of Parliament presided over the voting process in an impartial manner with usual parliamentary decorum.

The respondents vehemently denied the allegations of voter fraud, ballot stuffing and other irregularities.

They contend that the election results reflected the will of the electorate, arguing that the challenged election results strictly complied with Article 50 of the Treaty.