‘NASSOLO PETITION IS INCOMPETENT & BASED ON POLITICAL GAMES DISMISS IT WITH COSTS”- NUP MP-ELECT MUKASA’S LAWYERS ASK COURT

0
686

Mukasa’s response received by both Nassolo’s lawyers of Alaka & Co. Advocates and the Registra High Court

BY ANITA NAMBI
newseditor.info@gmail.com 

THE opposition National Unity Platform (NUP) Rubaga South MP-elect Aloysius Mukasa Talton Gold has finally responded to a petition filed by Democratic Party’s Eugenia Nassolo accusing him of bribing voters and for not being an eligible voter.
In Election Petition no. 07 of 2021 dated 19th March 2021, Nassolo is seeking the election of Hon. Aloysius Mukasa Talton Gold on January 14th 2021 as a member of Parliament for Rubaga South to be nullified.
For starters,  out of 14 candidates who contested for Rubaga South MP seat on January 14th 2021,  Aloysius Mukasa emerged the winner with 49,501 (Forty Nine thousand, five hundred and one) votes and Nassolo came second 12,893 (Twelve thousand, Eight Hundred ninety three) votes.
Through his lawyers of M/s Semuyaba, Iga & Co. Advocates, Hon. Mukasa has asked court to dustbin Nassolo’s petition saying it has no merit and is based on political mind games. He wants her petition dismissed with costs.

Also read: 10 MAJOR GAPS IN DP LOSER NASSOLO’S ELECTION PETITION TO CANCEL OUT LUBAGA SOUTH MP-ELECT ALOYSIUS MUKASA FOR DONATING AMBULANCE & BUILDING CHURCHES
In a four page response dated 29th March 2021 to Nassolo’s petition already received by her lawyers of Ms Alaka & Co. Advocates and the Registrar of Court, Hon. Mukasa’s lawyers have told court that, “The 1st Respondent (Aloysius Mukasa) shall aver and contend, the Petitioner’s petition is frivolous, vexatious and without merit and is based on Political mind games and therefore the Petitioner’s prayers have no merit and can not be granted by this court and A PRELIMINARY POINT OF LAW SHALL BE RAISED THAT THE PETITION IS INCOMPETENT AND DOES NOT RAISE ANY CAUSE OF ACTION AND IS STATUTE BARRED.”
Lawyers have told court that Nassolo at the time of filing her petition, did not attach any Affidavit of any Registered voter of Rubaga Division South Constituency who ever personally received the alleged donations and gifts from Mukasa instructing them to vote for him and not NASSOLO EUGENIA. She has also not demonstrated how the said donations and gifts influenced the ultimate results of the elections.

MP-elect Mukasa’s response to Nassolo’s petition reads: The Petition is only supported by the affidavit of NASSOLO EUGENIA (the Petitioner) as a sole witness without corroborating evidence and it is improbable that the same person could have attended the incidents of donating of branded masks to voters by the 1st Respondent (Aloysius Mukasa), water tanks on 23rd November 2020 at Nateete market and Ndeeba trading centre and at the same time attend the incident of donation of and giving gifts to wit Sugar, salt and soap to Kabowa village, Nateete Parish and Najjanankumbi to unnamed voters and at the same time, be the same person to witness the giving of free Ambulance services to constituents and unnamed voters using Motor vehicle Reg. No. UBE 564 and another Toyota Hiace  with unnamed number plates at the various places of Ndeeba, Nateete, Najjanankumbi 1&2, Kabowa and Rubaga parish and at the same time be the person to witness the denotation and giving gifts of bunches of Matooke (Banana), Rice, Sugar and Oil to the unnamed  voters on 24th December 2020 in the Parishes of Ndeeba, Nateete, Najjanankumbi 1&2, Kabowa, Rubaga Parish and later in the Month of November be the same person to witness at the donation of 300 bags of Cement toward the construction of St. Peter’s Church Ndeeba which had been demolished by court Bailiffs.
“The Petitioner shall be put to strict proof thereof.” Says Hon. Mukasa’s lawyers.

In Mukasa’s prayers to court, his lawyers say, “WHEREFORE, the 1st Respondent Aloysius Mukasa) prays that this Honourable Court dismisses the Petition against the Respondent with costs and WHEREOF, the 1st Respondent prays that this Honourable court orders that;

  1. The 1st Respondent’s election as a Member of Parliament for Rubaga Division South Constituency was valid.
  2. The 1st Respondent was qualified to stand as a Member of Parliament for Rubaga Division South Constituency 
  3. The petition is incompetent and bad in law
  4. The petition be dismissed with costs.

MUKASA’S FULL RESPONSE
● Save as herein expressly admitted, the 1st respondent denies each and every allegation of the fact as if the same were specifically set forth and transversed seriatim.  
● The 1st  respondent admits the contents of Paragraph 1,2,3 and 4 of the petition (that EC declared Aloysius Mukasa as the winner).
The 1st Respondent denies the content of Paragraph 5 (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e)of the Petition (that Mukasa was not dully nominated) and The Petitioner shall be put to strict proof thereof. 
● The 1st Respondent further contends that, the said election was conducted in accordance with the Provisions of The Constitution of The Republic of Uganda, The Electoral Commission Act (as amended), The Parliamentary Act  2005 (as amended)and other laws relating to elections. 
● In answer to Paragraphs 5 (a), (b) (i) (a) and (b) (ii) (a) and (b), (c)(i), (d) (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) The 1st Respondent avers that at the time  of his nomination for Parliamentary elections for Rubaga Division South Constituency, he was a dully registered voter and had the requisite qualifications that are higher than the minimum education qualification required by law, in that, at the time of his election as directly elected member of Parliament for Rubaga Division South Constituency, he was properly qualified to be a Member of Parliament in that he had dully completed the formal education of Advanced level Standard or its equivalent.
● The 1st Respondent has fully completed and attained Uganda Certificate of Education (UCE) and had completed and attained Uganda Certificate of Education.

  1. The 1st Respondent was a registered voter and possessed a National Identity Card in the Names of MUKASA ALOYSIUS TALTON GOLD NIN no. CM8303010ALQJJ Card no. 019820473;
    a) The 1st Respondent Gazzetted his Deed Poll to clarify his names on the 28th September 2020 and advertised it on the 13th October 2020 in The National Gazette while the Electoral Commission set 21st November 2020 and 11th December 2020 as the cut-off date for the update exercise which was later extended to 23rd of December 2020 and upon the expiry of the update exercise period, The Electoral Commission published in the Gazette the display period from 19th February 2020 to 10th March 2020.
    b) The Petition ought to have checked for the Status of the 1st Respondent Registration Particulars and/or to raise objections/complaints relating to omissions from the National Voter’s register as The Electoral Commission during the display period of The National Voter’s register attended to and addressed all objections, omissions of particulars that were brought to its attention and none was ever presented by the Petitioner during that period.
    c) The Petitioner’s allegation in Pragraph 5 (b),(ii), (a) of The Petition is false as the 1st Respondent’s Gazetted Deed poll did not change his name but only clarified and confirmed the fact that MUKASA ALOYSIUS TALTON GOLD was born on the 15th Day of October 1983 to Mr. Kalyango Aloysius and Ms. Naiga Annet and upon his birth, his father named him MUKASA ALOYSIUS TALTON GOLD and he grew up and started attending school he adopted/assumed the use of all names to wit MUKASA ALOYSIUS TALTON GOLD.
    d) The Gazetted Deed poll further clarified that since the 1st Respondent’s names were many he requested to use his last names TALTON GOLD in the initials as ‘T.G’ and all academic credentials reflect the same. 
    e) The Gazzetted Deed Poll further clarified and confirmed that during the registration of his National Identity Card, he registered all his names in full as MUKASA ALOYSIUS TALTON GOLD
    f) The 1st Respondent did not disown or denounce his names of TALTON GOLD but just silenced them and used their initials in his academic credentials.
    g)The Gazetted Deed poll further clarified that MUKASA ALOYSIUS TALTON GOLD and MUKASA ALOYSIUS T.G refer to one and same person that is the 1st Respondent
    h) The Gazetted Deed Poll further clarified, proved and confirmed that the use of names of MUKASA ALOYSIUS TALTON GOLD and MUKASA ALOYSIUS T.G refer to one and the same person that is the 1st Respondent but he prefers to be identified by his full name of MUKASA ALOYSIUS TALTON GOLD as it appears on his National Identity Card.
    ● The 1st Respondent avers that it’s not true the above mentioned names were not clarified a year after the closure of the update of the National Voters  register by the 2nd Respondent.
    ● The 1st Respondent was a registered voter in Rubaga Division South Constituency,  Kampala Capital City, or at all, at all material times of the elections of January 14th 2021 for the Directly Elected Representative to Parliament for Rubaga Division South Constituency possessed a National Identity Card in the names of MUKASA ALOYSIUS TALTON GOLD NIN no. CM8303010AQJJ Card no. 019820473 and dully obtained a voter location slip corresponding with NIN no. 83030101ALQJJ Card no. 019820473 voter no. 68354659 Kampala District, Rubaga Division South, Rubaga Division, Kabowa Parish Polling Station Kabowa Catholic Church (A-N)
    ● Interchanging names or changing their order does not in itself make the academic certificate invalid and dies not mean change of the qualifications denoted by such a certificate and that the order of names does not go to the root unless cogent proof is shown that indeed a person is not whom they claim to be.
    ● In the conduct of the said Election of Rubaga Division South Constituency, there was full compliance with the provisions of The Constitution of The Republic of Uganda 1995 (As amended), The Election Commission Act Cap. 140 and The Parliamentary Elections Act, 2005 (As amended) and the Election was conducted in accordance with the Principles laid down in those provisions and this petition has not challenged the result of the election in any way and they should be confirmed as it was the 1st Respondent who won the election for Directly elected member of Parliament for Rubaga Division South Constituency with a very big margin.
    ● The 1st Respondent’s nomination and subsequent election as a directly Member of Parliament for Rubaga Division South Constituency was valid as under Section 13 (c) of The Parliamentary Elections Act, the 1st Respondent was qualified for elections under Section 4 of the Parliamentary Elections Act as Amended.
    ● The 1st Respondent won election as a directly elected Member of Parliament for Rubaga Division South Constituency with a fairly large margin.
    ● The 1st Respondent shall contend that he is not guilty of any format of bribery of voters before,  during or after the elections in Rubaga Division South Constituency as alleged by the Petitioner in Paragraph 5 (c), (a), (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) of the Petition.
    ● Matters contained in the Answer to the petition are further verified by the 1st Respondent’s affidavit attached herewith and more evidence to follow in form of affidavits of witnesses.

For views/comments email us at newseditor.info@gmail.com

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here