Court petitioned over revised roadmap

POLITICS | ELECTION | COURT 

Two concerned citizens have petitioned court challenging the revised roadmap 2020/2021, which was released by Electoral Commission on June 16, this year.

Recently, Fred Mayanja and John Baptist Masaazi filed the complaint at the Civil Division of the High Court, saying the revision is unfair to voters.

They want court to revoke the road map released on June 16.

"This will leave out Ugandans in such areas where electricity does not reach, yet all Ugandans are equal before and under the law," the aggrieved say.

Digital untenable

The duo is seeking a declaration that the roadmap which authorised the digital method of campaigning, violates various fundamental  constitutional  rights  and freedoms.

They purport the revised roadmap signifies "Digital" campaigns and digital   in this case according to the former spokesperson of EC Jotham Taremwa means use of radios, televisions, and social media platforms during campaigning period.

Court documents indicate that EC stated its intentions of organising the 2020/2021   general elections through what they called digital campaigns.

Such campaigns imply that candidates will not be allowed to interface with the electorate during the campaign period but rather use of various social media platforms.

These platforms are radio and television stations to pass on information and to solicit for votes from the said electorates.

The petitioners say low electricity penetration will destabilise the new Electoral Commission (EC) road map.

The complainants assert that it is an undisputed fact that electricity reach is not countrywide. They say the implication is that not all voters will be able to listen to the campaign messages using the various digital fora.

"This kind of election will automatically  require all  the electorate  to have radio and TV  sets in order  to follow  their respective  candidates  and entire  election process," they assert.

Court documents further indicate that many citizens are needy and can hardly afford the basic essentials of life.

They say such a digital election would marginalise people who cannot afford smart phones, radio and television sets.

Court documents show that the complainants petitioned EC in a letter dated June 22, 2020 but in vain.

"We are not contended and therefore  not in agreement  with the digital  campaigns as a surfaced  in the launched  revised roadmap  for 2020/2021  general  elections by EC," reads  part of the letter.

The petitioners allege that as a result of the said roadmap, they lost confidence in the freeness, fairness and transparency of the 2020/2021 general election process as it is already tainted with gross violation   of fundamental human rights of most Ugandans.

"The defendant has no defense whatsoever to the suit because many other countries which were  hit by  COVID-19 pandemic  have held  successful  elections and  this makes the pandemic  not  a defense  to the violation  of the constitutional  rights of Ugandans, "they contend. 

Last week, aspiring National Resistance Movement (NRM) Vice Chairperson sued Government, seeking to block proposed political party regulations on elections.

The regulation, which was approved by Parliament a fortnight ago, requiring political groupings to waive a requirement of holding delegates conferences to determine their official candidates for different leadership positions.

This means political parties will now have the option of allowing their top organs to handpick the party candidates to compete in the coming 2021 general elections among others.

In a suit filed at the Civil Division of the High Court last week, Dr. Emmanuel Diini Kisembo argues that it is possible to conduct party meetings and elections while observing social distance methodology, the same way Parliament conducts business.

"The regulations as a whole are irregular and void for want of consultation with the Electoral Commission, the body in charge of processes in regard to political parties and organisations," he argued.

Dr. Kisembo submits that the regulations offend the democratic processes in regard to preparation for a free and fair democratic election.

He says political party meetings is a preserve of the Constitution and that the statute is not subject of regulations in disregard to amending the Constitution and or enabling statutes.

His case has been fixed for hearing on August 17, this month.