The two issues were whether the first respondent was at the time of nomination qualified for nomination as Member of Parliament and whether the petitioner was entitled to the reliefs sought.
The petitioner argued that the first respondent was a Congolese national and therefore not qualified to stand for elections. The petitioner rested his case on article 80 (1) (a) of the Constitution which provides that the qualifications of a member of parliament requires citizenship and to be a registered voter, among others. The petitioner based his case on three categories of evidence: testimonies by affidavit and through cross examination of residents and local leaders of Haibale village where the first respondent’s father says he was born; enumeration of refugees documents; and voters cards allegedly issued by the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The Court examined the enumeration of refugees document and found that the forms provided casted doubt on the enumeration documents provided as evidence by the petitioner. They were not proved in evidence because they were photocopies and were not certified by the official custodian which is to be the case for official documents. In terms of the Aliens (Registration and Control) Act, a person who is not a citizen of Uganda must be registered within 30 days of arriving in Uganda and be issued with a registration certificate. The local councils argued to have registered refugees had no authority to do so because they were not designated as registration centres.
Refugee status, citizenship, capacity to hold office, office of the President, proof of citizenship, requirements to stand for election, public office
This case relates to a petition to the High Court to set aside the election of the first respondent and to declare him as the runner up to the election, or to order a fresh election. The petitioner argued that the respondent was a refugee as opposed to a citizen of Uganda.
The grounds were that: 1) the first respondent was not qualified for election as a member of parliament; 2) the first respondent is not a citizen of Uganda; 3) the first respondent is a Congolese national and holds a voter’s card of the Democratic Republic of Congo; and 4) he first respondent entered Uganda in 1993 as a refugee.
In their answers, the first and second respondents argued that the first respondent was a citizen of Uganda and validly nominated to stand for election.
The Court reiterated that the burden of proof in an election contest rested on the contestant to prove such on a balance of probabilities.
The Petitioner’s evidence was found to be wanting, and some of which was procured illegally. There was no credible evidence that the respondent was a refugee or citizen of Congo. The first respondent, however, tendered all necessary documentation that he was a citizen of Uganda by birth, including a national identity card and passport, which was prima facie evidence of citizenship. The first respondent was found to be a citizen of Uganda.
The previous Act regulating refugees was the Aliens Act, which laid down procedures for registering refugees. The alleged procedure was not authorised in law to have taken place in 1993, so it could not be the case that the first respondent was registered as a refugee.
By operation of the 1995 Constitution, the respondents family were born in Uganda prior to independence and article 9 of the Constitution provides that every person who was a citizen on the commencement of the Constitution would remain a citizen.