High Court on 9 February, 2021 dismissed a request from National Unity Platform’s Hon. Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu to give additional confirmation to challenge President Museveni’s victory in the 2021 presidential ballots.
Following a declaration from Electoral Commission to announce incumbent Yoweri Museveni as the President elect, Kyagulanyi issued a petition to court questioning how he won the elections.
Kyagulanyi who in the petition called the elections as invalid noted that they were marred with vote-rigging and not held on perfectly 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.
While in a court hearing on Tuesday however, Hon. Robert Kyagulanyi through his lawyers requested the Supreme Court to grant them more time to collect enough evidence to back up their complaints.
The Petitioner’s lawyers through lead council Medard Sseggona told the court that Hon. Kyagulanyi was put under house arrest immediately after the January 14 elections which prevented him from gathering adequate 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.
However, the request was not granted by 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.