UGANDA'S FLAWED ELECTIONS: Commonwealth observers speak out on the registration exercise

Registration

27. An accurate register of voters is a fundamental requirement for elections held under Ugandan law. We explain the formalities in order that the allegations made to us of irregularities can be understood.

28. By the 1957 Act, a register of voters showing all persons entitled to vote at elections was required to be compiled for each polling division in each constituency. Only persons on the register are entitled to vote.

29. The process of registration commences with the publication by the Electoral Commission of a notice in the Gazette calling upon qualified persons to have their names entered in one of the registers by applying, during the stipulated period, to the registration officer in charge of the polling division in which he or she normally resides. Each registration officer is also obliged to publish particulars of the dates, times and places when and where those desiring to be registered should attend.
30. To be qualified for registration, a person must be 18 years of age and a citizen of Uganda within the definition of citizenship found in Article 4 of the 1967 Constitution.

31. On completion of the register, notice is required to be given in the Gazette and in such other manner as the Electoral Commission directs of the fact that the register has been completed and that it is open for inspection at all reasonable hours at the office of the registration officer. Persons who have applied for registration but whose names have been omitted from the register are entitled to apply to the registration officer for inclusion, provided their claim reaches the registration officer within 7 days from publication of the Gazette notice. Within 14 days of such publication, the registration officer is required to exhibit notices containing the names and addresses of any claimants. Similarly, any person whose name appears in the register may object to the inclusion either of his own name or the name of any other person, or to the name of any claimant. Objections must be filed within 7 days from date of publication, and notice of objection sent to the concerned.

32. The registration officer is then obliged to hold a public enquiry as soon as possible into all claims and objections received. Where an objection has been lodged, the onus of proof lies on the objector. Those dissatisfied with the decisions of the registration officer may appeal to a Chief Magistrate or Resident Magistrate.

33. The registration of voters began on 6 October and was to have concluded on 17 October, but was subsequently extended to 23 October. Thus by the time we arrived in Uganda, the main phase of the exercise had been substantially completed. We were impressed that 4,880,484 names were on the register.

34. The registers attracted complaints from all the political parties as well as from ordinary voters. It was said that the registers had not been completed within the prescribed time; that names had been added or deleted after the registers had closed; that in some areas the registers had either been displayed in wrong places or not exhibited at all for public inspection; that citizens eligible for registration had been refused; that others had had their names incorrectly spelt; and that occasionally series of registration numbers had been duplicated or mismatched.

35. Particular importance was attached to suggestions that names had been incorrectly spelt in registers, as in the previous elections of 1961 and 1962, such clerical errors had been interpreted by presiding officers as debarring eligible voters from exercising their franchise.

36. Immediately upon our arrival we made the registration process one of the focal points of 'our enquiry. We were conscious that inaccurate registers had a potential to mar the entire process and even lead to violence on polling day should persons who considered themselves to be validly registered be refused ballot papers. As a result of intensive field investigations which we undertook from our various centres, it soon became clear, however, that the registers were not a significant problem in any part of the country except West Nile and some south-western districts, notably Mbarara, Bushenyi, Kabale, Kasese and Rukungiri. We were also reliably informed that the compilation of electoral registers in the south-west had always encountered problems brought about by the presence of large numbers of migrants from neighbouring countries, especially Rwandese.

37. In Mbarara it was alleged that several thousand had been incorrectly included, and the UPC lodged a formal objection. Because of the magnitude of the claim, and because the Elector Commission had insufficient transport for the purpose, we Judged it appropriate for us to make our own aircraft available to the Commission so that some of the Commissioners could personally attend to ensure the proper handling of the objections. One of our Group also travelled with them. In the event, the objectors failed to appear at the hearing and, in accordance with the provisions of the electoral law, the objections were all dismissed.

38. On the days of the poll we paid special attention to the number of persons being turned away from polling stations despite having registration cards. These proved very few in number and our assessment based on our observations of the poll was that the registers proved satisfactory.

39. However, the West Nile districts of Arua, Nebbi and Moyo fall into a special category. In Arua, registration began on 6 October 1980 but was suspended in the north after one day and in the south after three days on account of an invasion from across the Zaire and Sudan borders. Following a visit by some of our members to Arua, we established to our satisfaction that no register of voters had ever been compiled in any of the polling divisions within that district. Not only had the invasion interrupted registration almost from the outset, but two registration officers whom members of the Group met confirmed to them that no registers had been compiled. Some had lost' their registration books in the war, others still retained them; the few names recorded had never been drawn up and submitted to the Electoral Commission. The condition of the office of the Returning Officer in Arua was testimony to the plight of the district as a whole: doors hanging loose, the windows smashed, papers scattered and all the furniture looted. Two Ministers subsequently visited Arua and had indicated that a fresh registration exercise would be undertaken. This, however, was not done. As a result it was widely understood that in the event of a poll in Arua, special arrangements would need to be made.

40. In Nebbi, registration began on 6 October and was similarly interrupted by the invasion. Registers of sorts were nonetheless compiled and it was alleged to us that clandestine registration continued between 26 October and 9 December. The evidence suggests that no display of the register was possible and that no objections were dealt with despite the fact that the Democratic Party filed objections in respect of the names of 3,000 whom they alleged to be citizens of Zaire, not of Uganda. The District Commissioner admitted to members of the Group, that the registers were incomplete and contained 99,800 names as at 9 December, but he declined to estimate the shortfall.

41. We were unable to visit the remaining West Nile district of Moyo, having been firmly advised against doing so on security grounds. We were, however, told that the position in Moyo was the same as that prevailing in Arua.

Replacement of District Commissioners

42. Among the first complaints we encountered was that, during the registration process, some 14 District Commissioners had been suspended so as to disengage them both from registration activity itself and from acting as returning officers for the poll. It was alleged that in each instance the suspended DC had been replaced by a person known to be a supporter of the UPC. At our first meeting with the Chairman of the Military Commission, he himself raised this matter and explained to us that the suspensions had been rendered necessary by the incompetence and dilatoriness of those concerned and their refusal to conduct the registration process in accordance with the law. We must however, say that in the course of our travels we spoke to staff who had served under a few of these DCs as well as some of the DCs themselves. While we are unable to comment in respect of all the suspended DCs, in a few instances at least we found that the DCs in question enjoyed the confidence and respect of staff and public alike. While this in our view may not have materially affected the ultimate result, it generated suspicion and doubt among many sections of the electorate. This was heightened by the replacement of the Chief Justice only days before the poll.