The Masaka High Court upheld the election of Aisha Ssekindi as Kalungu District Woman Member of Parliament. On Thursday, the court dismissed a petition challenging her victory on grounds of alleged electoral malpractice and non-compliance with electoral laws. Justice Bernard Namanya dismissed the petition filed by Hellen Nakeeya, the National Resistance Movement (NRM) candidate who ran against Ssekindi, an independent.
Nakeeya accused Ssekindi of bribing voters and deploying her security details to unleash violence against her opponents during the campaign and on the polling day. She told the court that two of her campaign coordinators were shot dead, several others injured, and three campaign vehicles destroyed during the violence.
Nakeeya also accused Ssekindi’s campaign agents of distributing dummy ballot papers across the district two days before polling to confuse voters, particularly elderly NRM supporters, into voting for an independent candidate. Nakeeya had, through her lawyer, Simon Peter Kasangaki, asked the court to nullify the election results and order a fresh poll in which she could participate freely.
Justice Namanya ruled that although Nakeeya had proved that serious incidents of violence and electoral malpractice occurred during the campaign period, she had failed to meet the statutory threshold for overturning the election.
“Although the petitioner proved that grave incidents occurred during the electoral period, including the killing of two of her supporters, namely Katumba Gerald and Muyingo Frank; assaults; intimidation; malicious damage to a campaign vehicle; and acts of incitement and misinformation, the occurrence of those acts, without more, does not satisfy the statutory threshold for overturning an election,” the judgment reads in part.
Justice Namanya faulted the Electoral Commission for failure to take timely measures to address the violence and intimidation that marred the electoral exercise in Kalungu District, including the killing of Nakeeya’s supporters. The judge noted that during the hearing of the petition, the Commission failed to explain why it did not take remedial measures following the killings, including considering postponing the poll under Section 64 of the Parliamentary Elections Act.
“No satisfactory explanation was offered by the Electoral Commission for the failure to take timely remedial measures following those killings, including consideration of the power to postpone polling under section 64 of the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap. 177),” the judgment reads.
On the allegations of voter bribery and distribution of dummy ballot papers, the court found that Nakeeya had failed to adduce reliable evidence demonstrating how the acts influenced voters or affected the election outcome.
The judge noted that, given the declared margin of 20,275 votes between the candidates, the court could not conclude that the irregularities substantially affected the result based solely on the gravity of the incidents.
He held that an election could not be overturned on the basis of conjecture, sympathy, or the possibility that the petitioner’s campaign activities had been disrupted. He also ordered the two parties to meet their respective legal expenses. However, Nakeeya has expressed dissatisfaction with the ruling, saying she is considering appealing the decision-URN. Give us feedback on this story through our email: kamwokyatimes@gmail.com
