“WE DO NOT WANT YOUR MONEY”. GHETTO YOUTH TELL PRESIDENT MUSEVENI

Today Youth from Kamyoka  popularly known as the Ghetto Avenue denounced the recent politically related help that was rushed to them since the disruption of the city with #FreeBobiWine protests.The unknown Political agents according to  reliable sources are from the Presidents office sent by President Museveni.

In alive video the youth denounce that they were never interested in the money that had been brought to them by the agents.

Civil Society Organisations are decrying the commercialization of politics which may compromise the quality of leaders who shall be voted in to Office.

The executive director of Transparency International Peter Wandera says politicians in campaigns are bribing voters with money which is likely to divert voters from issues to instead vote those giving them money.

Wandera says the electoral commission should consider putting a limit on monies to be used in campaigns and candidates should declare their sources of funding.

An Example of Such Activities is Provided Down here

 

Bribing Voters of Tabaluzinga, Kamugombwa And Kikeera Villages With Steamers

The petitioner presented mainly two witnesses to prove these three allegations.  They are PW58, Kyalimpa Nicholas and PW17, Kisegerwa Mundu.  The gist of the evidence in the two affidavits is that the two witnesses attended rallies in each of the three villages during the first week of January, 2011.  The rallies were for the second respondent.  The witnesses state that the second respondent donated a steamer at each rally while asking for votes from those attending the rally.  PW58 states that at Taba Ruzinga the steamer was handed over to Noa Kambagira.  At Kamugombwa, it was handed over to mukyala Nganda.  At Kikeera, it was received by Ssalongo Musisi.   He states that he was present when all that happened.

 

There were two affidavits in rebuttal.  They were by Kambagira Noa and Babirye Rukia also called mukyala Nganda; They are, RA2.44 and RA2.42, respectively.  Neither of them answer the averments contained in the affidavits of both Kyalimpa and Kisegerwa.  The affidavits of mukyala Nganda and Kambagira rebut the affidavit of Gingo Frank Kibirige, which the petitioner did withdraw for failure to produce him for cross-examination.  The averments by Kibirige did not relate to the allegation of donation of the three steamers.  Ssalongo Musisi did not file any affidavit denying receipt of the alleged steamer for Kikeera village.

 

Kyalimpa Nicholas was not cross-examined.  Kisegerwa Mundu was.  But no question in cross-examination was put to him on the allegation of the donation of the 3 steamers by the second respondent.

 

The second respondent himself did not specifically deny those allegations. In the view of the court, therefore, the allegations by the two witnesses remain unrebutted substantially.

 

When Kisegerwa appeared before court for cross-examination, court assessed him to be a witness of truth.  It has no reason to disbelieve him.

 

Learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the evidence on these allegations was not cogent enough.  He stated that these was not link between the second respondent and the agents who distributed the steamers.  Court does not agree, with all due respect to learned counsel.  The evidence on record is that it was the second respondent personally who gave a steamer to each village at each rally.  He never acted through his agents.  The question of nexus does not arise.  The recipients received the steamers on behalf of their respective villages.  They were not agents of the second respondent.

 

In the circumstances, court does not have any option but to find that these three allegations have each been proved to its satisfaction, upon the balance of probabilities.

 

Court could go on and on to cover all the 22 allegations involved in the evidence on record.  It appears to be futile to do so in the circumstances.  It suffices to say that the petitioner has proved his first general allegation. in his petition, that the second respondent committed illegal practices during the campaign period.

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published.