2001 presidential elections free and fair â€" observers
THE 2001 Presidential elections were declared free and fair by all election observers present in the country at the time, both local and international, although they acknowledged that the electoral process and management had certain weaknesses.
By Vision Correspondent
THE 2001 Presidential elections were declared free and fair by all election observers present in the country at the time, both local and international, although they acknowledged that the electoral process and management had certain weaknesses.
The observers also agreed that President Museveni’s margin of victory was so large that it made immaterial the effect of any minor irregularities.
A recent series of articles in the press has attempted to demonstrate that there were 1.2 million ghost voters in the 2001 presidential elections, equivalent to 16% of all those who voted.
There were 16,000 local observers in all the polling stations during the 2001 presidential elections. They were organised under the NEM Group (NGO Election Monitoring Group-Uganda). There were also several international observer teams, including monitors from the Organisation of African Unity, Kenya, Nigeria and individual European states. Though some were more critical than others, all of them agreed that the outcome of the elections reflected the will of the electorate.
The Kenyan team in a 35-page report published on June 4, 2001 wrote: ‘None of the African election observer groups reported any serious matter that compromised the exercise of the franchise of the Uganda people in this election.’
The Kenyan observers, who said they benefited greatly from the information received from the NEM Group, noted claims by the opposition candidates of alleged electoral fraud and rigging. The observers, however, failed to find evidence. ‘Claims of electoral fraud, illegal possession of ballot papers, vote buying and stuffing of ballot boxes were abundant. However, no concrete proof was tendered to validate these claims.’
Neither did the Kenyan team witness military interference of the electoral process. ‘Although there were widespread reports of military interference of the electoral process, none was observed by the team. The army we saw were generally accompanied by the Police and they seemed to maintain law and order jointly. It thus did not look like a military venture or operation.’
On the media, the Kenyan observers noted that there were no restrictions and that different media houses backed different candidates. The report concluded: ‘It is the view of the Kenya delegation that, despite lack of adequate preparation, the people of Uganda voted overwhelmingly in a mature, democratic, free, fair and peaceful manner.’
Similarly, the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) concluded that the presidential elections were held in a transparent and satisfactory way.
‘The OAU team wishes to commend the Electoral Commission of Uganda for the organisation that allowed the people of Uganda to freely exercise their democratic rights,’ their statement of March 13, 2001, said. ‘The team was particularly satisfied with the Electoral Commission’s efforts to ensure adequate technical arrangements for the polling and the conduct of the exercise in a transparent manner.’
The team was also satisfied with ‘the restraint of the army and the Police force from interfering in the polling exercise while providing the necessary security.’ The OAU observers further expressed concern about ‘certain reported acts of violence and intimidation, which led to the loss of lives’ during the campaign period.
It concluded: ‘Given the aforementioned observations and other few technical shortcomings, it is the view of the OAU Observer team that the exercise was conducted transparently and in a satisfactory manner.’
The Nigerian team, too, noted no major irregularities. “We were impressed that in spite of the presence of military men, all the rallies we attended were peacefully conducted… During the voting, law and order was maintained… As we return to Nigeria, we hold the view that democracy has come to stay in Uganda.†The European Union ambassadors, for their part, reported minor irregularities and serious concerns about elements of the election process but found these not sufficient to affect the outcome of the presidential and parliamentary elections.
“The election processes were comprehensively monitored by Ugandan civil society organisations that noted a range of minor irregularities,†writes the Delegation of the European Commission in its 2001 annual report. ‘International observers… concurred broadly with these judgements.’
‘Serious concerns were voiced, however, around the deployment and conduct of security forces, around the lack of clarity on the rules governing the conduct of elections and around the quality of the process for managing and updating the electoral register. The irregularities were not sufficient to affect the outcome of the Presidential elections nor of a large majority of parliamentary polls.’ The American Congress concurred with this view. ‘Election observers, both local and international, declared the elections to be free and fair, although they acknowledged that the electoral process and management had many weaknesses’, it noted in its report on the Great Lakes Region of October 28, 2003.
‘The results of the elections were rejected, however, by one contestant Kizza Besigye on grounds that there were discrepancies and inconsistencies in the electoral process. He filed a petition at the Supreme Court challenging the declaration of Museveni as president-elect and sought to annul the vote.
Besigye subsequently lost the petition and said he would respect the Supreme Court verdict.’
Ends
THE 2001 Presidential elections were declared free and fair by all election observers present in the country at the time, both local and international, although they acknowledged that the electoral process and management had certain weaknesses.
The observers also agreed that President Museveni’s margin of victory was so large that it made immaterial the effect of any minor irregularities.
A recent series of articles in the press has attempted to demonstrate that there were 1.2 million ghost voters in the 2001 presidential elections, equivalent to 16% of all those who voted.
There were 16,000 local observers in all the polling stations during the 2001 presidential elections. They were organised under the NEM Group (NGO Election Monitoring Group-Uganda). There were also several international observer teams, including monitors from the Organisation of African Unity, Kenya, Nigeria and individual European states. Though some were more critical than others, all of them agreed that the outcome of the elections reflected the will of the electorate.
The Kenyan team in a 35-page report published on June 4, 2001 wrote: ‘None of the African election observer groups reported any serious matter that compromised the exercise of the franchise of the Uganda people in this election.’
The Kenyan observers, who said they benefited greatly from the information received from the NEM Group, noted claims by the opposition candidates of alleged electoral fraud and rigging. The observers, however, failed to find evidence. ‘Claims of electoral fraud, illegal possession of ballot papers, vote buying and stuffing of ballot boxes were abundant. However, no concrete proof was tendered to validate these claims.’
Neither did the Kenyan team witness military interference of the electoral process. ‘Although there were widespread reports of military interference of the electoral process, none was observed by the team. The army we saw were generally accompanied by the Police and they seemed to maintain law and order jointly. It thus did not look like a military venture or operation.’
On the media, the Kenyan observers noted that there were no restrictions and that different media houses backed different candidates. The report concluded: ‘It is the view of the Kenya delegation that, despite lack of adequate preparation, the people of Uganda voted overwhelmingly in a mature, democratic, free, fair and peaceful manner.’
Similarly, the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) concluded that the presidential elections were held in a transparent and satisfactory way.
‘The OAU team wishes to commend the Electoral Commission of Uganda for the organisation that allowed the people of Uganda to freely exercise their democratic rights,’ their statement of March 13, 2001, said. ‘The team was particularly satisfied with the Electoral Commission’s efforts to ensure adequate technical arrangements for the polling and the conduct of the exercise in a transparent manner.’
The team was also satisfied with ‘the restraint of the army and the Police force from interfering in the polling exercise while providing the necessary security.’ The OAU observers further expressed concern about ‘certain reported acts of violence and intimidation, which led to the loss of lives’ during the campaign period.
It concluded: ‘Given the aforementioned observations and other few technical shortcomings, it is the view of the OAU Observer team that the exercise was conducted transparently and in a satisfactory manner.’
The Nigerian team, too, noted no major irregularities. “We were impressed that in spite of the presence of military men, all the rallies we attended were peacefully conducted… During the voting, law and order was maintained… As we return to Nigeria, we hold the view that democracy has come to stay in Uganda.†The European Union ambassadors, for their part, reported minor irregularities and serious concerns about elements of the election process but found these not sufficient to affect the outcome of the presidential and parliamentary elections.
“The election processes were comprehensively monitored by Ugandan civil society organisations that noted a range of minor irregularities,†writes the Delegation of the European Commission in its 2001 annual report. ‘International observers… concurred broadly with these judgements.’
‘Serious concerns were voiced, however, around the deployment and conduct of security forces, around the lack of clarity on the rules governing the conduct of elections and around the quality of the process for managing and updating the electoral register. The irregularities were not sufficient to affect the outcome of the Presidential elections nor of a large majority of parliamentary polls.’ The American Congress concurred with this view. ‘Election observers, both local and international, declared the elections to be free and fair, although they acknowledged that the electoral process and management had many weaknesses’, it noted in its report on the Great Lakes Region of October 28, 2003.
‘The results of the elections were rejected, however, by one contestant Kizza Besigye on grounds that there were discrepancies and inconsistencies in the electoral process. He filed a petition at the Supreme Court challenging the declaration of Museveni as president-elect and sought to annul the vote.
Besigye subsequently lost the petition and said he would respect the Supreme Court verdict.’
Ends