- Advertisement -

• Denies touching ‘‘the anus of a leopard’’ saying

• Denies giving out a bribe of UgShs 250,000# to voters in every village throughout Uganda

• Denies giving out hoes to the voters of west Nile with the intention that they should vote for him

- Advertisement -

President Museveni Lawyers have filed a petition in Supreme Court of Uganda. In response to one filled by Hon. Amama Mbabazi. Below we reproduce part of the petition.

The 1st Respondent’s answers to the petition

Save for what is hereafter expressly admitted to be true, each and every allegation in the petition is denied as if the same were left forth verbatim herein and transversed seriatim.

The 1st Respondent denies that the petitioner has grievance within the meaning of Article 104 (1) of Constitution and Section 59 (1) of the Presidential Elections Act.

The Candidates mentioned in Paragraph 2 of the petition participated in the Presidential elections held on the 18th February 2016 and the 1st Respondent having pulled 5,617,503 votes being 60.75% of the valid votes cast on the 20th February declared elected as president of the Republic of Uganda.

In answer to Paragraph 3 and specifically 3(f) of the petition, the 1st Respondent states that no illegal practices and / or offences referred to therein as alleged or at all were committed by himself personally or his knowledge and consent or approval.

In specific answer to paragraph 3 (a) (1) of the petition, the 1st petition, the 1st Respondent states that he did not personally or through his agent with his knowledge or consent or approval, give hoes to the voters of west Nile or at all with the intent that they should vote for him and refrain from voting the Petitioner and other Presidential candidates. The giving of hoes to the people of Uganda is part of an ongoing program of the Government of the Republic of Uganda to support farmers with Agricultural implements to improve household incomes. The programme started well before the 2015/2016 campaign and Election period.

In answer to Paragraph 3 (a) (ii) of the petition, the 1st Respondent avers that he did not personally or through his agents with knowledge and consent or approval, give out a bribe of UgShs 250,000# to voters in every village throughout Uganda with intent that they should vote for him and refrain from voting the Petitioner and other candidates. This money was paid out by the National Resistance Movement to its braches to support their activities.

In answer to Paragraph 3 (b) of the petition, the 1st Respondent avers that he did not make any reckless statements referring to the Petitioner and candidate Kizza Besigye as alleged or at all.

The 1st Respondent denies the contents of Paragraph 3 (C) of the petition and states that the crime Preventers referred to are Volunteers lawfully trained by Uganda Police as part of the policy of community policing and not for the purposes alleged by the petitioner.

In answer to Paragraph 3(d) of the petition, the 1st Respondent denies using derogatory and reckless language of threatening to arrest the Petitioner and Kizza Besigye as alleged. What he stated using a Runyankole saying was that anybody who causes violence would face the full force of the law. His reference to touching ‘‘the anus of a leopard’’ was figurative to illustrate the recklessness of anybody breaking the law.

In answer to Paragraph 3(e) of the petition, the 1st Respondent avers that he did not threaten that if the voters elected the petitioner or anybody else Uganda would go back to war. What he said during his campaign was that Uganda should exercise their right to vote carefully to protect the gains and progress the country has achieved so far since 1986.

In answer to paragraph 4 of the petition, the first Respondent did not direct the Inspector General of Police Kale Kayihura and his officers to prevent the petitioner from conducting consultations with voters in preparation for his nomination as a presidential candidate.

In answer to paragraph 5 of the Petition, the 1st Respondent states that he did not direct any officers under the command of General Kale Kayihura of the Uganda Police Force to arrest, humiliate or detain the petitioner as alleged or at all and he did not campaign as alleged.

In Answer to Paragraph 6 of the Petition, the 1st Respondent denies the petitioner or his supporters were wounded by the Uganda Peoples Defences Forces, the Uganda Police or Crime Preventers or any State Security agencies during the time of his consultations or at all, to frustrate his efforts or to give the Respondent unfair advantage.

In answer to Paragraph 7 of the petition, the respondent denies that he was illegally nominated or given unfair advantage by the 2nd Respondent and avers that he was properly and duly nominated in accordance with the law after being endorsed by the relevant organs of the National Resistance Movement.

In answer to Paragraph 8 of the petition, the 1st Respondent denies the allegations that candidates were not given equal treatment and that preferential treatment was given to the 1st Respondent was given in his capacity as Presidential candidate.

- Advertisement -

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.