Businessman Shukla Mukesh, commonly known as Shumuk is challenging Ssenyonyi's election on grounds that the electoral commission didn’t follow the law in declaring him the winner in the January elections. He alleges that area presiding officers connived with Ssenyonyi's agents to alter the Declaration Results forms to snatch his victory.
Warning: Undefined array key 1 in /usr/www/users/urnnet/a/includes/functions.php on line 9147
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /usr/www/users/urnnet/a/includes/functions.php on line 9148
Nakawa West MP Joel Ssenyonyi is using a Supreme court ruling that stopped presidential candidate Robert
Kyagulanyi from introducing new grounds to oppose the election of Yoweri Museveni, to
also oppose the amendment of a petition that is challenging his election.
Businessman Shukla Mukesh, commonly known as Shumuk is challenging Ssenyonyi's election on grounds that the electoral commission didn’t follow the law in declaring
him the winner in the January elections. He alleges that area
presiding officers connived with Ssenyonyi's agents to alter the
Declaration
Results forms to snatch his victory.
However, in May, Mukesh without seeking leave
of the court also introduced lack of academic qualifications as another ground to
oppose Ssenyonyi’s victory. But today before Judge Isaac Muwata, Ssenyonyi’s
lawyers led by Dennis Atwijukire raised a preliminary objection saying the court has no powers to hear, let alone, extend the time in which an aggrieved
party can file an election petition.
To support their arguments, Ssenyonyi’s
lawyers relied on the Supreme Court ruling which stopped Kyagulanyi from introducing
new grounds to challenge Museveni’s election after the January 2021 Presidential election.
“The Parliament
Elections Act and the Election Petition rules have no provisions for amendment
of the petitions already filed and its already settled by the Supreme Court in
Kyagulanyi Robert Ssentamu vs Yoweri Museveni Tibuhaburwa and two others…where the courts held that ‘The Act doesn’t
provide for the extension of time for filing an Elections Petition," Atwijukire told the court.
He added that the same decision was interpreted and relied on by Justice Andrew Bashaija in
the petition of Wanyoto Lydia Mutende vs Electoral Commission and Nakayenze
Connie Galiwango when faced with a similar situation.
When the court made the ruling in February, the National Unity Platform, including Ssenyonyi criticized the ruling calling it illegal
and biased against their former presidential candidate. The party said then that
such a ruling was a clear manifestation of how Museveni’s government had
captured the judiciary.
Asked after the court hearing whether he now believes it's okay to deny petitioners to amend their petitions after the legally
accepted time, Ssenyonyi told URN that his opinion no longer matters because
that ruling is now part of the country’s laws.
Cue in… but really we
Cue out…any goal shifting,
The court today heard Ssenyonyi’s preliminary objections
and has set Friday this week as the day when Mukesh’s lawyers who said were not
ready to proceed to give their response to the objection.
“We are going to seek an adjournment after his submission.
We haven’t been furnished with the authorities we will need to go
through what they have raised,” said Badru Bwango, Mukesh’s lawyer.
Speaking to URN, George Musisi, another of Ssenyonyi’s
lawyers said they are convinced, Mukesh doesn’t have a sound petition that’s
why his lawyers keep on asking for adjournments.
