LIVE: Ruling on Presidential Petition No. 1 of 2016

LIVE: Rulings so far (via @IsaacImaka)

1. Electoral Commission legally nominated Museveni as candidate.
2. Court finds that Electoral Commission acted in its Constitutional mandate. There was a national voters register.
3. EC complied with law when it used the National ID cards to identify voters instead of the voters cards.
4. The use of biometric machines did not constitute non compliance to the elections act and didn't disenfranchise voters
5. The assertion of voting without opening ballot boxes was not supported by any evidence in court so it was not proved.
6. The claim of lack of secret voting in some areas was not proved.
7. Evidence in affidavits before Supreme court does not prove there was pre-ticking of votes anywhere.
8. Claim of polling before and after time had no concrete evidence
9. There was no evidence to back claims that anybody ineligible to vote actually voted.
10. On pre-ticked ballots in favour of Museveni, court says they found the rebuttal more credible than the submitted evidence
11. Petitioner didn't adduce evidence to back claims that some of his agents and supporters were stopped from voting.
12. In some cases the petitioner's polling agents were indeed denied information.
13. There is no satisfactory evidence that voters cast their vote before or after voting time save for a few parts as explained by EC's Kiggundu.
14. Evidence on record shows returning officers opened envelopes... and there was no noncompliance with ECA.
15. The EC could use  Electronic transmission of results and that can't constitute noncompliance.
16. The allegation regarding electronic transmission of results is not non compliance bse EC can use electronic means to transmit results
17. Based on documents in court, the results declared by EC were based on tally sheets submitted by returning officers.

Day 7 THURSDAY MARCH 31

The Supreme Court is right now announcing its verdict of the Uganda Election Petition 2016.

The court will determine:

• Whether there was non compliance with provisions of the Presidential Elections Act and Electoral Commission Act in the conduct of the 2016 presidential election.
• Whether the election was not conducted in compliance with the principles laid down in the provisions in the two Acts.
• Whether non-compliance affected the 2016 presidential election results in a substantial manner
• Whether there were offenses committed under the PEA by Museveni personally or with his knowledge and consent or approval.
• Whether it was right to include the Attorney General in the case as a party to the petition.
• Whether Mbabazi is entitled to any of the reliefs sought.

The nine Justices of the court, led by the Chief Justice Bart M. Katureebe are Justices: Jotham Tumwesigye, Dr. Esther Kisaakye, Mary Stella Arach-Amoko, Augustine Nshimye, Eldad Mwangusya, Rubby Aweri-Opio, Faith Mwondha and Prof. Lillian Tibatemwa Ekirikubinza.

Amama Mbabazi, the former premier, who came third in the presidential race, behind Rtd. Col. Dr Kizza Besigye and President Yoweri Museveni, petitioned the Supreme Court citing irregularities in the elections.

He sued the poll winner, President Museveni jointly with the Electoral Commission and the Attorney General seeking to nullify the February 18, 2016 presidential poll results.

Day 6 SATURDAY

After hearing final submissions on the final day of the Uganda Election Petition, the Supreme Court concluded the day by saying they will announce their decision on March 31.

On the final day, there was heated debate as the petitioner's lawyers submitted what they said were contradictions in the Declaration of Results forms from the Electoral Commission. They claimed some places had more than 100% voter turn out, evidence which was challenged by the respondents.

The respondents asked court to therefore throw out the case with costs.

SUMMARY OF DAY'S EVENTS via Twitter. CLICK HERE

***

Day 5 FRIDAY

Counsel Mwesigye Rukutana has complained that the rules of the elections petition do not in anyway envisage the Attorney General being a respondent in an election petition.

Rukutana said this as the third respondent in the Election Petition No 1 of 2016, the Attorney General, today started providing his defence.

Day number five at the Supreme Court started and ended dramatically, with Rukutuna describing the petition as "adventurist, shallow, frivolous and devoid of any merit" and concluded that "any reasonable court will strike it out with costs."

The hearing then took a dramatic turn when the petitioners insisted on getting more time to review the Election Declaration Forms that they said were deliberately given them late.

While the respondents vehemently opposed it, the Supreme Court ruled that " in the interests of justice the Court orders that the Petitioner will continue his presentation tomorrow .

Court declared that, by consent of both parties, the DR forms  and tally sheets have been accepted as evidence.

READ A SUMMARY OF TODAY'S EVENTS IN COURT (CLICK HERE)

*****

The Electoral Commission's day had ended yesterday with lawyer Elison Karuhanga asking the Supreme Court to dismiss the petition challenging President Yoweri Museveni's victory, saying "we can't cancel an election due to means of transmission. It is not supported by the law and certainly not by logic.

He and his colleagues for the EC were responding to one of several points raised by the petitioners in the Uganda Elections Petition No1 of 2016 that entered day 4 in the capital Kampala today. The petitioners claimed it was not clear how the EC was tallying results and questioned the mode of transmission of results from district to the national centre at Namboole.

Earlier, Okello-Oryem had also charged that "an election should not be annulled unless it's been affected in a substantial manner."

Kabega on his part argued that a "delay in delivery of material should be treated as admin error. EC should be judged on overall performance and not on delayed delivery."

READ A summary of events in court today (CLICK HERE)

*******

Day 3 Wednesday had the 1st respondent's lawyers argue that the petitioner had failed to provide evidence for most of their accusations, claiming their case was based "on hope and not fact."

Lawyers  Didas Nkurunziza, Joseph Matiskio, Kiryowa Kiwanuka and Ebert Byenkya argued that the Petitioners had not provided any evidence to back their many allegations that included voter bribery, the effects of the social media ban and ballot stuffing.

SUMMARY of Day 3, Tuesday (CLICK HERE)