Prime
EC rejects change of law on by-elections, poll petitions
Electoral Commission Chairperson Justice Simon Byabakama addresses the media after appearing before the Parliamentary legal committee yesterday. PHOTO/ ALEX ESAGALA
The Electoral Commission yesterday poked holes in the proposed Constitutional amendments aimed at changing the way election petitions in relation to how Parliamentary elections are handled.
The Private Member’s motion; the Constitutional Amendment Bill No 2, 2020 was tabled in July 2020 by Jinja Municipality East Member of Parliament Paul Mwiru, who argued that the current legal framework of handling petitions is not only time consuming but also costly for many of the aggrieved personnel involved in the litigation process.
Mr Mwiru proposed that an election petition tribunal, which would have the jurisdiction to hear and determine any question on the validity of election or vacation of office of a Member of Parliament, be established.
The MP also proposed an amendment to Article 81(2) of the Constitution to reduce the number of days within which by-elections shall be organised by the EC after a parliamentary seat is declared vacant from 60 to 30 days.
While appearing before the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee yesterday, EC chairman Justice Simon Byabakama said the establishment of an election petition tribunal only to handle petitions against election of MPs will leave behind aggrieved persons in local government elections that are also challengeable in the High Court.
“In other words, having identified the challenges facing the handling of parliamentary petitions, what is the rationale for excluding election petitions of district chairpersons whose jurisdiction also falls under the High Court?” Justice Byabakama asked.
Justice Byabakama also asked what gap the proposal is supposed to heal by stopping the parties in the petition like the EC, which might have grounds for appeal against the decision of the Election Petitions Tribunal, whose decision is supposed to be final.
Concerning the reduction of the time within which by-elections should be held the EC said it would be difficult to organise such an exercise within a short time.
“Timeline for the conduct of fresh elections following the annulment is not sufficient given the timelines required for planning, mobilisation of resources, procurement, stakeholder engagement, printing, and production of ballot papers,” Justice Byabakama said.
Addressing concerns that the election petitions against MPs take a lot of time to be resolved including decisions on appeals by the Court of Appeal, the EC officials suggested that Parliament handles the matter with the Judiciary.
Committee chairperson Jacob Oboth-Oboth (West Budama South) concurred with the EC, saying there is a need for the MPs to interact with the top officials from the Judiciary to discuss how election petitions can expeditiously be disposed of.
“That means the top managers because we do not want the Chief Justice here. We want to know why a judge would take long to deliver justice on election petitions?” said Mr Oboth.
Withdraw of petition
Meanwhile, Justice Byabakama told reporters at Parliament that he was delighted to learn of former presidential Candidate Robert Kyagulanyi’s withdrawal of the petition he had filed in the Supreme Court challenging the re-election of Mr Museveni on January 14.
Last week, the Supreme Court granted leave to Mr Kyagulanyi, the leader of the National Unity Platform (NUP) party, to withdraw his petition.
Justice Byabakama said the withdrawal of the petition means the Commission can now confirm it did a commendable job in organising the presidential elections since it is now unsuccessfully challenged.
“What I want to assert to the people of Uganda is that what the Electoral Commission announced as the results of the presidential elections are what transpired at the 30,000 plus polling stations across the country,” he said.
He also appealed to Mr Kyagulanyi not to mislead the country by tabling before journalists “questionable” declaration forms, adding that they may not be acceptable to anyone since he failed to utter them as evidence in the Supreme Court.
[email protected]
