AG contests Besigye court petition
Jun 14, 2009
THE Attorney General has asked the Constitutional Court to throw out Kizza Besigye’s petition, which sought to scrap sections of the Presidential Elections Act.
By Anne Mugisa
THE Attorney General has asked the Constitutional Court to throw out Kizza Besigye’s petition, which sought to scrap sections of the Presidential Elections Act.
Khiddu Makubuya said Besigye’s petition was an abuse of the judicial process, since the Supreme Court had already dealt with the issues he wanted addressed.
Besigye wants the results of the presidential elections cancelled whenever the court establishes irregularities or malpractice.
According to the existing Presidential Elections Act, the Supreme Court can only order fresh elections when judges are convinced that the irregularities affected the final results.
In his petition, Besigye said the law did not define what ‘substantial’ was.
“The Parliament did not define what it meant by substantial violation of electoral principles or substantial contravention of the law,†he argued.
Besigye added that the Act gave the Government and the Electoral Commission space to break the law. He also said it allowed judges leeway to legalise irregularities.
Although in the 2001 and the 2006 presidential elections the Supreme Court established irregularities, it did not cancel the election.
The Supreme Court ruled that the irregularities were not substantial to affect the results of the election.
Besigye argued that the Act was inconsistent and contravened the Constitution.
The Attorney General said the Act did not give a blanket approval to the Electoral Commission, candidates, their agents and voters to transgress the law with impunity.
He added that neither did the law make court a party to condoning illegalities brought to its attention.
THE Attorney General has asked the Constitutional Court to throw out Kizza Besigye’s petition, which sought to scrap sections of the Presidential Elections Act.
Khiddu Makubuya said Besigye’s petition was an abuse of the judicial process, since the Supreme Court had already dealt with the issues he wanted addressed.
Besigye wants the results of the presidential elections cancelled whenever the court establishes irregularities or malpractice.
According to the existing Presidential Elections Act, the Supreme Court can only order fresh elections when judges are convinced that the irregularities affected the final results.
In his petition, Besigye said the law did not define what ‘substantial’ was.
“The Parliament did not define what it meant by substantial violation of electoral principles or substantial contravention of the law,†he argued.
Besigye added that the Act gave the Government and the Electoral Commission space to break the law. He also said it allowed judges leeway to legalise irregularities.
Although in the 2001 and the 2006 presidential elections the Supreme Court established irregularities, it did not cancel the election.
The Supreme Court ruled that the irregularities were not substantial to affect the results of the election.
Besigye argued that the Act was inconsistent and contravened the Constitution.
The Attorney General said the Act did not give a blanket approval to the Electoral Commission, candidates, their agents and voters to transgress the law with impunity.
He added that neither did the law make court a party to condoning illegalities brought to its attention.