The court ruled that Bobi Wine will not be subjected to any fines for withdrawing his petition challenging President Museveni’s victory in the just-concluded presidential elections.
The Supreme Court Thursday ruled that National Unity Platform leader, Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu alias Bobi Wine will not be subjected to any fines for withdrawing his petition challenging President Museveni’s victory in the just-concluded presidential elections.
Earlier, Kyagulanyi wrote to the Supreme Court requesting to withdraw his petition citing biased judgement. The NUP leader noted with concern that three judges on the panel of nine that were chosen to hear out his case had conflicts of interest which did not guarantee he would attain a fair hearing.
Kyagulanyi noted three judges including Chief Justice Owiny-Dollo, justice Mike Chibita and Ezekiel Muhanguzi whom he said is related to the security minister, Gen Elly Tumwine.
“We want to put the Supreme Court on notice that if this persists, we are not going to be part of that mockery, the next step is to take the matter to the public court,” Kyagulanyi said then.
“We understand that Chief Justice Owiny-Dollo has close political contact with President Kaguta Museveni having been the president’s defence lawyer in 2006. Mike Chibita, another judge on the panel, was President Museveni’s private secretary on legal affairs for seven years and Ezekiel Muhanguzi is a relative to Gen Elly Tumwine who is the security minister.”
Following the withdraw, judges on President Museveni’s team based on section 61 of the Presidential Elections Act, 2005 requested that the court levies fines on Kyagulanyi as the law states. The Act reads that once a court petition is withdrawn, the petitioner shall be liable to pay the costs of the respondent.
However, on Thursday, the panel of nine judges ruled that the costs will not be levied on Kyagulanyi because it would deter other would-be petitioners from filing cases.
Justice Ezekiel Muhanguzi who read the ruling on behalf of the other justices said that although it is bolded in the Act that the petitioner must be equal to the fines it is only a directory but not a mandate.
“Ordinarily the petitioner would be ordered to pay costs of the petition to the respondents based on the general rule that costs follow the event. However, the need to promote access to justice in presidential election petitions overrides the need to condemn the applicants to payment of costs. Each party will pay their own costs,” Justice Muhanguzi read.
“It is upon this background that the word “shall” as contained in the provisions of Section 61 of the Presidential Elections Act 2005 is a directory and not mandatory. This means that the general provisions of the law related to costs should be applied to this case.” he added.
