Court has dismissed a request from Robert Kyagulanyi seeking to present more evidence challenging Museveni’s victory in the just-concluded presidential polls.
The Supreme Court has dismissed a request from National Unity Platform’s Robert Kyagulanyi seeking to present more evidence challenging President Museveni’s victory in the just-concluded presidential polls.
Earlier on following a declaration from EC to announce Museveni as the newly elected president, Kyagulanyi issued a petition to court questioning how the incumbent won the polls.
In his petition, Kyagulanyi who rendered the elections as invalid said that they were marred with vote-rigging and not held on fairgrounds.
“The election was invalid on grounds that it was not conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the provision of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, the Presidential Elections Act and the Electoral Commission Act,” part of Kyagulanyi’s petition read.
However, while in a court hearing on Tuesday, Kyagulanyi through his lawyers requested the Supreme Court to allow them more time to pile enough evidence to back up their complaints.
Kyagulanyi’s lawyers led by Medard Sseggona told the court that their client was under house arrest immediately after the January 14 polls which prevented him from gathering enough evidence.
“After the election, the petitioner was placed under house arrested and only managed to get out after an order of the High Court. By the time he got out, he was left with only five days to gather evidence. That was therefore a disability factor,” Sseggona said before the court on Tuesday afternoon.
“How do you conduct an inquiry into an election when some evidence is left out yet it could have been brought to the attention of the court? The only way the credibility of the presidency can be checked is by allowing such an application,” he added.
The request was, however, not granted by the Supreme Court noting that the matters raised came outside the time allocated for filling of the petition.
“This court finds that the matters raised in the proposed amendment and the alleged committed electoral offences are already pleaded for in the petition. Court also finds that the issue of the qualification of the first respondent is a matter which came outside the time allocated for filing of the petition,” Justice Stella Amoko Arach read the ruling on behalf of a panel of nine justices.
