High Court judge Simon Peter Kinobe has dismissed a petition filed by Mulirire Daniel, a former parliamentary aspirant for Budiope East Constituency in Buyende District, a decision that strengthens Moses Magogo’s path to Parliament as an unopposed candidate.

Mulirire had challenged the Electoral Commission’s decision to disqualify him from contesting for the Budiope East parliamentary seat, arguing that the Commission erred in law by holding that he failed to attach proof of resignation from the Uganda Police Force to his nomination papers, contrary to Section 4(4)(a) of the Parliamentary Elections Act. He maintained that he had resigned from the police with effect from April 15, 2024, and that documentary evidence of his resignation was already in the possession of the Electoral Commission before his nomination.

In his ruling, Justice Kinobe found that Mulirire failed to present credible and compelling evidence to prove that he had resigned from government service before seeking nomination. The judge held that while the law does not expressly require proof of resignation to be attached on nomination day, the obligation to provide such evidence becomes mandatory once the matter is contested before the Electoral Commission.

“I find that the petitioner herein failed to discharge this obligation. It is also the finding of this court that the provision of proof of resignation becomes mandatory and vital at the point of a complaint being lodged with the Electoral Commission. I therefore agree with the 1st respondent that the petitioner failed to prove that he had resigned from the service of government in line with Section 4 (4) (a) Parliamentary Elections Act,” Justice Kinobe ruled.

The court noted that during the proceedings before the Electoral Commission, Mulirire was required to adduce cogent evidence to support his claim of resignation, given that the issue had become contentious. Justice Kinobe explained that such evidence must be free from contradictions, truthful, and compelling enough to persuade a reasonable tribunal.

In assessing the resignation letter presented by Mulirire, the judge found it insufficient and unreliable. “The letter which appears to be originating from the Uganda Police Force, indicated that the Uganda Police Force had accepted his resignation…It is my opinion that the letter was not sufficient for the simple reasons that the letter was signed by a one Aryatuha Dora, apparently on behalf of the Inspector General of Police. The title and capacity of the author is not indicated. The letter is not certified, and neither is there evidence that such a letter existed as at the time of nomination,” Kinobe ruled.

Mulirire had also accused the Electoral Commission of violating his right to a fair hearing, claiming that the complaint was determined on November 18 yet he was served on November 23, and that no hearing notice was issued to him or his lawyers. The court dismissed this argument, holding that late service alone could not excuse failure to participate in proceedings.

“My understanding of the right to a fair hearing is that a party should be afforded an opportunity to be heard among others. The position of the law is that where a party is afforded an opportunity to be heard and they do not take the opportunity, they cannot be heard on an allegation that they were not heard. The Commission would therefore not be faulted unless there is cogent evidence adduced to prove that the manner in which it conducted the proceedings did not afford the Petitioner an opportunity to be heard,” the ruling read in part.

The High Court decision effectively upholds the Electoral Commission’s disqualification of Mulirire and bolsters Moses Magogo’s quest to be declared unopposed as Member of Parliament for Budiope East.

In the same ruling, Justice Kinobe issued a caution to lawyers against publicly discussing cases that are still pending before court. He warned that it has become increasingly common for advocates to debate ongoing cases on social media and other public platforms, sometimes even speculating on likely outcomes.

“It has now become quite fashionable for some advocates to engage in extensive discussion of matters in which they are engaged as counsel and which are being prosecuted before the court on social media and other public fora including discussing their submissions as filed in court and insinuating the likely outcome of the litigation, a practice that has now been borrowed by litigants too. I should not be understood as meaning that advocates are barred from engaging in any professional discussion of a matter pending in court, albeit within the confines of the rule against sub judice. I only wish to caution such errant legal counsel of the need to remind themselves of their professional duty as officers of Court to always maintain professional decorum and etiquette and restrict any such discussions to what is acceptable within professional limits".

URN