UGANDA'S FLAWED ELECTIONS: Nominations exercise critique

OBSERVERS’ REPORT
43. Nominations opened at 9 a.m. and closed at 12 noon on 25 November - the date of the arrival of the main body of the Group in Uganda, who were therefore unable to be present at nomination centres. Those of us who had come in advance were, however, able to witness the nomination process in the Kampala and Mukono districts. The results of the nominations provoked an immediate outcry throughout the country and the complaints arising from the handling of nominations became one of our main focal points of enquiry.

44. Each party was required to file lists of intending candidates with the Electoral Commission, and those who sought nomination who were not on the relevant list needed to produce letters of introduction from their party, evidencing its wish that their names be substituted.

45. By law, each returning officer was required to attend his nomination centre from 9 a.m. to 12 noon on nomination day to receive the nomination papers of candidates. Once a nomination paper and a candidate's consent to nomination has been delivered and a deposit paid, a candidate is by law deemed to stand nominated unless and until the returning officer decides that the nomination paper is invalid. In practice this decision is made and publicly announced on nomination day.

46. A nomination paper must be delivered by a candidate in person, be proposed and seconded, also in person, by voters registered in the constituency concerned and be supported in writing by no fewer than 10 such additional registered voters.

47. Each nomination paper must be accompanied by a declaration in the form prescribed and an income tax clearance certificate.
Where a candidate has not previously sat in the National Assembly, and has not attained certain educational standards, he must also provide a certificate of proficiency in the English language.

48. Members of the public service are ineligible for nomination. It had been widely publicised that public servants wishing to stand in the election, then scheduled for 30 September, were required to have resigned by 30 July 1980.

49. A returning officer is entitled to rule a nomination paper invalid on only one of three grounds -
a) that the particulars of the candidate or the persons subscribing the paper are not as required by law or
b) that the paper is not subscribed as required or
c) that the paper is not accompanied by the required statutory declaration or by a certificate of proficiency in the English language if such be required.
50. Where a returning officer decides that a nomination paper is invalid, he must endorse on the paper the reasons for his decision .

51. There seemed to us to be a widespread misunderstand of the law. The impression we gained was that many returning officers, and indeed many prospective candidates, believed that if nomination papers had not been checked and passed by the returning officer by 12 noon, prospective candidate'- were to be ruled as being out of time regardless of how early in the day they may have presented themselves at the nomination centre. In our view the law in the matter is quite plain. The returning officer is obliged to receive the papers from all prospective candidates who present themselves at his office between the stated hours. We make this point because of the persistent complaint that some returning officers tended to process the nominations of UPC candidates ahead of all the rest, and because of events in Kasese to which we refer later.

52. On 25 November the UPC secured 15 unopposed returns - Arua (5), Moyo (1), Lira (4),.Apac (3), Soroti (1) and Kotido (1). Only in Masaka North did the prospective UPC candidate fail to achieve nomination on nomination day and this by virtue of non-presentation of the necessary income tax certificate. On 8 December, however, his nomination was declared to be valid.

53. The other three parties all encountered problems. The DP secured 110 nominations (which on 8 December were reduced to 107), the UPM 76 and the Conservative Party 47. We received a large number of complaints from them. In some instances we formed the view that through lack of organisation or lack of information they had contributed towards their own misfortune .
ln other instances, however, we were convinced that the law had been applied incorrectly, selectively or in a manner contrary to its spirit.

54. We now deal with the districts in which the more controversial unopposed nominations took place.
55. Arua. The five unopposed returns in Arua district have attracted the most attention. In our Interim Report we dealt with the common factor underlying the rejection of all five DP candidates - the failure to produce income tax clearance certificates. However, it is fair to point out that in only one instance - Arua South West - was this the sole cause of failure.

Additional causes cited by the Electoral Commission were a failure to resign from a post as teacher (1), a failure to produce a letter of introduction from party headquarters to confirm replacement of candidature (2), failure to produce a letter of acceptance of resignation from the public service (2 an absence of a certificate of proficiency in English (I), and a failure to tender an affidavit in lieu of support by 12 registered voters (1).

56. Because of the difficulties, it was a widely-held view that no election would take place in the region on 10 December. The DP said that the first they knew of the decision to hold elections in the West Nile, traditionally regarded as a DP stronghold, was when an announcement to this effect was made on Thursday, 20 November. On account of the security problems involved in travel, there was thus not enough time for the party to organise the essential income tax clearances and also have their candidates physically present in Arua, with the papers, 9 a.m. the following Tuesday.

The DP acknowledged to us that they were caught unawares. The UPC said they, too, had had no oadvance warning of the decision and had prepared themselves for the eventuality of a contest in the West Nile only out of an abundance of caution. This, the UPC said, and this alone, accounted for their ability to fulfil certain of the legal requirements both in the West Nile and almost every other constituency.

57. The Electoral Commission confirmed to us that it had, agreed with the DP that, in the circumstances, the requirement of production, of an income tax clearance would, be deferred to later date. The Commission said that it had notified the returning officer for Arua accordingly. The UPC told us they were not so advised.