DOCSLIB.ORG

The Republic of Uganda in the Supreme

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

5 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION PETITION NO. O1 OF 2016 (CORAM: KATUREEBE, C.J, TUMWESIGYE, KISAAKYE, 10 ARACH AMOKO, NSHIMYE, MWANGUSYA,OPIO-AWERI, MWONDHA, TIBATEMWA-EKIRIKUBINZA, JJ.SC.) AMAMA MBABAZI …………………………………….PETITIONER VERSUS 15 YOWERI KAGUTA MUSEVENI ……………. 1stRESPONDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION ……………… 2ndRESPONDENT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ………………… 3rd RESPONDENT PROFESSOR OLOKA ONYANGO & 8 ORS………..AMICI 20 CURIAE DETAILED REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT The Petitioner, who was one of the candidates in the presidential 25 election that was held on the 18th February, 2016 petitioned the 1 5 Supreme Court under the Constitution, the Presidential Elections Act, 2000 and the Electoral Commission Act, 1997 (hereinafterreferred to as the PEA and the ECA, respectively). He challenged the result of the election and sought a declaration that Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, the 1st Respondent, was not 10 validly elected and an order that the election be annulled. On the 31st March 2016, we delivered our decision in line with the Constitutional timeline imposed on the Court to render its judgment within 30 days from the date of filing the petition. We were not, however, in a position to give detailed reasons for our 15 findings and conclusion. We found that the 1st Respondent was validly elected as President in accordance with Article 104 of the Constitution and Section 59 of the PEA. Accordingly, we unanimously dismissed the petition. We made no order as to costs. 20 We promised to give the detailed reasons at a later date, which we now give in this judgment. Background The 18thFebruary 2016 General Elections were the 3rd since the re-introduction of multiparty politics in Uganda as the country 25 shifted from the movement system. The presidential race attracted a total of eight candidates, four of whom were party sponsored while four vied as independent candidates. The Petitioner stood as an independent candidate while the 1st 2 5 Respondent stood on the NRM party ticket. The others were: Dr. Kizza Besigye Kifefe (Forum For Democratic Change); Abed Bwanika (The Peoples Development Party); Baryamureeba Venansius (Independent); Benon Buta Biraaro (TheFarmers Development Party); Mabiriizi Elton Joseph (Independent) and 10 Maureen Faith Kyalya Waluube(Independent). On the 20th February 2016, the Electoral Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “Commission”), declared the presidential election results as follows: - Abed Bwanika 86,075 (0.93%) 15 - Amama Mbabazi 132,574 (1.43%) - Baryamureeba Venansius 51,086 (0.55%) - Benon Buta Biraaro 24,675. (0.27%) - Kiiza Besigye Kifefe 3, 270,290 (35.37%) - Mabiriizi Joseph 23,762 (0.26%) 20 - Maureen Faith Kyalya Waluube 40,598 (0.44%) - Yoweri Kaguta Museveni 5,617,503 (60.75%) ThePetitioner was aggrieved by the above declared results. He filed this petition before this Court under Article 104 of the Constitution and Section 59(1) of the PEA, based on various 25 grounds and complaints. In the petition,the Petitioner contended that the election was conducted without compliance with the provisions and the principles of the PEA, the ECA and the 1995 Constitution and 3 5 that this affected the result of the election in a substantial manner. For this, he faults the Commission. The specific complaints against the Commission included: illegal nomination of the 1st Respondent, illegal extension of nomination deadline, failure to compile a National Voters 10 Register, failure to issue voters cards resulting in disenfranchisement of voters, use of unreliable Biometric Voter Verification Machine (BVVK), failure to identify voters, late delivery of polling materials, failure to control polling materials, starting voting without first opening the ballot boxes, allowing 15 voting without secret ballot, pre-ticking and stuffing of ballot papers, voting before and after polling time, multiple voting, allowing unauthorized persons to vote in the presidential elections, prevention ofthe Petitioner’s agents from voting, chasing awaythe Petitioner’s agents from pollingstations and 20 denyingthe Petitioner’s agents information. Another set of allegations consisted of noncompliance with electoral laws by the Commission during the process of counting, tallying, transmission and declaration of results namely: counting and tallying of election results in the absence 25 ofthe Petitioner’s agents; declaration of results without Declaration of Results Forms; unlawful electronic transmission of results from districts to the National Tally Centre using theElectronic Results Transmission and Dissemination System( ERTDS); illegal and unlawful declaration of the 1st 4 5 Respondentas the winner of the presidential election without District Returns and District Tally Sheets and lack of transparency in the declaration of results. Among the specific complaints against the 1st Respondent were that several illegal practices and electoral offences were allegedly 10 committed by him either personally, or with his knowledge and consent or approval. They included voter bribery, violence and intimidation, making derogatory statements, war mongering and misuse of Government resources. The Petitioner made no specific complaint against the Attorney 15 General but several allegations were made against public officers and security personnel. ThePetitioner’s prayers to the Court included: an order for vote recount in 45 districts named in the petition; a declaration that the 1st Respondent was not validly elected as president; an 20 order annulling the election of the 1st Respondent and an award of the costs of the petition to him. The 1st Respondent deniedthe Petitioner’s allegations of breaches of the law. The Commission also opposed the petition and contended that the election was held in compliance with the 25 provisions of the electoral laws and asserted that, if there was any noncompliance, which was denied, it did not affect the result of the election in a substantial manner. 5 5 The Attorney General (hereinafter referred to as the “AG”) opposed the petition as well and further contended that it was, in any case, improperly joined as a party to the petition. All the Respondents sought the dismissal of the petition with costs. 10 At the commencement of the hearing, counsel forthe Petitioner applied under Article 126 of the Constitution, Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act and Rule 15 of the Presidential elections (ElectionPetitions) Rules, 2001 vide Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2016 to amend the petition. The application was 15 allowed and the Amended Petition was filed on the 7th March 2016. The Respondents filed their answers to the Amended Petition on the 9thMarch 2016. Two applications were alsobrought before Court prior to the hearing of the petition for leave to intervene as amicus curiae in 20 the petition. The first one, Professor Oloka Onyango & Ors (MA No. 2 2016), was brought by lecturers from Makerere University Law School jointly. The second application, Foundation for Human Rights Initiative & Ors, (MA No. 3 of 2016), was brought by Civil Society organizations. Court allowed 25 Miscellaneous ApplicationNo. 02 of 2016 and dismissed Miscellaneous ApplicationNo. 3 of 2016. The Makerere University lecturers filed their amicus brief on the 17th of March 2016 which was copied to the parties. 6 5 The hearing of the petitioncommenced on 14th March, 2016 and ended on 19th March, 2016. Article 104 of the Constitution and Section 58 of the PEA require that the petition must be inquired into and determined expeditiously and theCourt must declare its findings not later than thirty days from the date of filing the 10 petition.The Judgment was thus set to be delivered on 31st March 2016. In accordance with the Presidential elections (ElectionPetitions) Rules 1996, the parties filed affidavit evidence in support of each party’s case. Furthermore, the chairman of the Commission, 15 Engineer Dr. Badru Kiggundu was cross-examined bythe Petitioner’s counsel. Althoughthe Petitioner stated in his affidavit that he had annexed documents set out in a list mentioned as Annexure ‘A’ as well as copies of Election Observers Reports, that was not the case. These affidavits were in fact never filed in 20 Court, nor were the Election Observer Reports. The Petitioner however, filed other affidavits on or about the 10th of March 2016. At the pre-hearing conference, the parties agreed on the following facts: 25 1. That there was a Presidential election conducted by the Commission on the 18th February, 2016. 7 5 2. That on 20th February 2016, the 1st Respondent was declared as validly elected president with 5,617,503 votes representing 60.75%of the valid votes cast. 3. That on the 20th February 2016,the Petitioner was declared to have polled 132,574 votes representing 1.43% of the valid 10 votes cast. The agreed issues were: 1. Whether there was noncompliance with the provisions of the PEA and Electoral Commission Act, in the conduct of the 2016 Presidential election. 15 2. Whether the said election was not conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the PEA, and the Electoral Commission Act. 20 3. Whether if either issue 1 and 2 or both are answered in the affirmative, such noncompliance with the said laws and the principles affected the results of the elections in a substantial manner. 25 4. Whether the alleged illegal practices or any electoral offences in the petition under the Presidential election Act, were committed by the 1st Respondent personally, or by his agents
Recommended publications
  • UGANDA COUNTRY REPORT October 2004 Country

    UGANDA COUNTRY REPORT October 2004 Country

    UGANDA COUNTRY REPORT October 2004 Country Information & Policy Unit IMMIGRATION & NATIONALITY DIRECTORATE HOME OFFICE, UNITED KINGDOM Uganda Report - October 2004 CONTENTS 1. Scope of the Document 1.1 - 1.10 2. Geography 2.1 - 2.2 3. Economy 3.1 - 3.3 4. History 4.1 – 4.2 • Elections 1989 4.3 • Elections 1996 4.4 • Elections 2001 4.5 5. State Structures Constitution 5.1 – 5.13 • Citizenship and Nationality 5.14 – 5.15 Political System 5.16– 5.42 • Next Elections 5.43 – 5.45 • Reform Agenda 5.46 – 5.50 Judiciary 5.55 • Treason 5.56 – 5.58 Legal Rights/Detention 5.59 – 5.61 • Death Penalty 5.62 – 5.65 • Torture 5.66 – 5.75 Internal Security 5.76 – 5.78 • Security Forces 5.79 – 5.81 Prisons and Prison Conditions 5.82 – 5.87 Military Service 5.88 – 5.90 • LRA Rebels Join the Military 5.91 – 5.101 Medical Services 5.102 – 5.106 • HIV/AIDS 5.107 – 5.113 • Mental Illness 5.114 – 5.115 • People with Disabilities 5.116 – 5.118 5.119 – 5.121 Educational System 6. Human Rights 6.A Human Rights Issues Overview 6.1 - 6.08 • Amnesties 6.09 – 6.14 Freedom of Speech and the Media 6.15 – 6.20 • Journalists 6.21 – 6.24 Uganda Report - October 2004 Freedom of Religion 6.25 – 6.26 • Religious Groups 6.27 – 6.32 Freedom of Assembly and Association 6.33 – 6.34 Employment Rights 6.35 – 6.40 People Trafficking 6.41 – 6.42 Freedom of Movement 6.43 – 6.48 6.B Human Rights Specific Groups Ethnic Groups 6.49 – 6.53 • Acholi 6.54 – 6.57 • Karamojong 6.58 – 6.61 Women 6.62 – 6.66 Children 6.67 – 6.77 • Child care Arrangements 6.78 • Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)
  • Analysis of Twitter Activity on Election Eve and Election Day in Uganda

    Analysis of Twitter Activity on Election Eve and Election Day in Uganda

    #UgandaDecides Analysis of Twitter Activity on Election Eve and Election Day in Uganda Monitoring Uganda Elections Series 02 #UgandaDecides April 2016 Uganda held presidential and parliamentary elections on February 18, 2016. In the lead-up to the elections, Uganda held the first presidential debates. See an analysis of Twitter Activity around the debates. Excitement about the election was palpable in online commentary on the eve of the elections. However, on the morning of the Election Day, many were unable to access social media sites including Facebook and Twitter, the popular money transfer service Mobile Money, and the mobile-based texting platform Whatsapp. The national communications regulator, Uganda Communications Commission (UCC), had instructed service providers to block access to these platforms in a bid to “protect public order and safety”. This action instead resulted in users turning to Introduction Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) in order to circumvent the blockage and exercise their right to freedom of expression, access and share information on the voting and vote tallying processes. Figure 1: A tweep points out the violation of Freedom of Expression following the shutdown of social media platforms President Yoweri Museveni defended the shutdown in a press conference saying, “There must be steps taken for security to stop so many creating trouble… it’s temporary. It will go away. Because some people misuse those pathways. You know how they misuse them, telling lies. If you want a right, then use it properly.” Further, the UCC claimed that the instruction to shut down social media was made by the Inspector General of Police Kale Kayihura.
  • Ouganda : Un Pays En Mutation Au Cœur D’Une Zone De Fractures

    Ouganda : Un Pays En Mutation Au Cœur D’Une Zone De Fractures

    Les Études du CERI N 4 - septembre 1995 Ouganda : un pays en mutation au cœur d’une zone de fractures Richard Banégas Centre d’études et de recherches internationales Fondation nationale des sciences politiques Ouganda : un pays en mutation au cœur d’une zone de fractures Richard Banégas Entre les images de mort des années Amin et Obote, de la guerre civile et du sida et le souvenir nostalgique de la “ perle de l’Afrique ” (Churchill), l’Ouganda reste prisonnier de clichés hérités d’un passé chaotique qui ne reflètent pourtant plus guère la réalité. L’Ou- ganda actuel est en effet un pays en complète mutation, en pleine reconstruction économique et politique, qui devient un pôle essentiel de stabilité régionale au coeur d’une zone de fractures minée par la violence, marquée par des conflits “ tectoniques ” et la déliquescence des structures économiques ou étatiques. Après des années de guerre civile, au gré d’un processus de pacification et de démocratisation assez lent, un nouvel ordre politique est en train d’émerger. Au plan économique, en contraste avec ses voisins immédiats, l’Ou- ganda offre l’image d’un pays en croissance qui offre aux investisseurs des opportunités d’autant plus intéressantes que se réactive un processus d’intégration régionale (au sein de la Communauté est-africaine) qui, à l’horizon 2000, devrait constituer un des plus vastes marchés d’Afrique avec près de 100 millions d’habitants. A travers cette étude, nous voudrions d’abord évaluer l’ampleur de ces mutations opé- rées par l’Ouganda depuis quelques années et les enjeux économiques, politiques et di- plomatiques qu’elles comportent pour l’ensemble de la zone.
  • Former DFCU Bank Bosses Charged Over Global Fund Scam

    Former DFCU Bank Bosses Charged Over Global Fund Scam

    4 NEW VISION, Thursday, April 3, 2014 NATIONAL NEWS Former DFCU Bank bosses charged over Global Fund scam By Edward Anyoli Lule, while employed by Lule through manipulation of 300 sub-recipients and DFCU – a company in which Former Global Global Fund foreign exchange, individuals be audited further Two former managers of DFCU the Government had shares – falsely claiming that it was and that former health minister, Bank have been charged with directed the bank to convert Fund boss Dr. commission fees for soliciting Maj. Gen. Jim Muhwezi and abuse of office, costing the $2m Global Fund money into Global Fund business. his deputies; Mike Mukula Government sh479m. the local currency at an inflated Muhebwa was last Kantuntu, Lule and Kituuma and Alex Kamugisha, be Robert Katuntu, the former foreign exchange rate of Magala (a city lawyer, who is prosecuted. managing director of DFCU sh1,839 per dollar, which was week charged with summoned to appear in court This resulted into the and Godffrey Lule, the bank’s higher than the rate of sh1,815, on April 11) are jointly facing establishment of the anti- former head of treasury, were raising a difference of sh48m. causing financial the charges with Dr. Tiberius corruption division of the yesterday charged before the On another charge, Lule Muhebwa, the former Global High Court in December Anti-Corruption Court chief is accused of fraudulently loss of sh108m Fund project co-ordinator. 2008, which has convicted magistrate. They denied the directing the bank staff to Muhebwa has been charged two suspects; Teddy Cheeye charges and were granted cash convert $1m Global Fund with causing financial loss of the presidential adviser on bail of sh3m each.
  • Elite Strategies and Contested Dominance in Kampala

    Elite Strategies and Contested Dominance in Kampala

    ESID Working Paper No. 146 Carrot, stick and statute: Elite strategies and contested dominance in Kampala Nansozi K. Muwanga1, Paul I. Mukwaya2 and Tom Goodfellow3 June 2020 1 Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. Email correspondence: [email protected] 2 Department of Geography, Geo-informatics and Climatic Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. Email correspondence: [email protected]. 3 Department of Urban Studies and Planning, University of Sheffield, UK Email correspondence: [email protected] ISBN: 978-1-912593-56-9 email: [email protected] Effective States and Inclusive Development Research Centre (ESID) Global Development Institute, School of Environment, Education and Development, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK www.effective-states.org Carrot, stick and statute: Elite strategies and contested dominance in Kampala. Abstract Although Yoweri Museveni’s National Resistance Movement (NRM) has dominated Uganda’s political scene for over three decades, the capital Kampala refuses to submit to the NRM’s grip. As opposition activism in the city has become increasingly explosive, the ruling elite has developed a widening range of strategies to try and win urban support and constrain opposition. In this paper, we subject the NRM’s strategies over the decade 2010-2020 to close scrutiny. We explore elite strategies pursued both from the ‘top down’, through legal and administrative manoeuvres and a ramping up of violent coercion, and from the ‘bottom up’, through attempts to build support among urban youth and infiltrate organisations in the urban informal transport sector. Although this evolving suite of strategies and tactics has met with some success in specific places and times, opposition has constantly resurfaced.
  • The Dynamics of Political Leadership and Democracy

    The Dynamics of Political Leadership and Democracy

    THE DYNAMICS OF POLITICAL LEADERSHIP AND DEMOCRACY IN UGANDA-1962-2011. A CASE STUDY OF KABALE DISTRICT BY PAMELA ANKUNDA 2006/HD03/8262U BACHERLOR OF ARTS (BA EDS) A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF A MASTERS OF ARTS IN LEADERSHIP AND HUMAN RELATIONS, SCHOOL OF LIBERAL AND PERFOMING ARTS, COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES, MAKERERE UNIVERSITY SEPTEMBER 2012 1 DECLARATION I Pamela Ankunda, declare that this is my original work and has never been presented to any Institution of learning for any award. NAME:……………………………………………………………… SIGNATURE:………………………………………………………… DATE:…………………………………………………………………. This work has been submitted with my approval as a university supervisor. NAME: DR. TUGUME LUBOWA HASSAN SIGNATURE:…………………………………………………………….. DATE:……………………………………………………………………… 2 DEDICATION This work is dedicated to daddy and mummy, so long forever gone. 3 ACKNOWLEGDMENTS: This study would never have been possible without the guidance of Dr.Lubowa whose patience is unmatched. I can‘t possibly mention all my friends, but no doubt-Emma Kaduku, Don-Benji, Carol, Kansiime J, Violet, Grace, Charlotte, Asimwe, Ruth, Bugzy, Oquals, Eropu, Kyompeire, Harrison, deserve special recognition. You guys are the best! Puki and Lydia, thank you for the unconditional open arms. I also would like to thank the family of OR for their support and prayers. My sisters and brothers, thank you. Special love to Brenda Naturinda, Mark, Malcolm, Diana and Keza-Maria. Prof. Michel and Dee, you taught me virtues I will always cherish. Thank you. I am also extremely grateful to all my respondents, some of whom have a lot of human stories about an everyday struggle for democracy as they understand it.
  • The Applicant Col Rtd Dr. Kizza Besigye Filled This Application by Notice of Motion Under Article 23 (6) of the Constitution Of

    The Applicant Col Rtd Dr. Kizza Besigye Filled This Application by Notice of Motion Under Article 23 (6) of the Constitution Of

    THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 83 OF 2016 (ARISING FROM MOR-OO-CR-AA-016/2016 AND NAK-A-NO.14/2016) COL (RTD) DR. KIZZA BESIGYE:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT VERSUS UGANDA::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT. BEFORE: HON JUSTICE MR. MASALU MUSENE RULING The applicant Col Rtd Dr. Kizza Besigye filled this application by Notice of Motion under Article 23 (6) of the Constitution of Uganda, section 14 of the Trial on Indictments Act, cap 23 and rule 2 of the Judicature (criminal procedure)(applications rules S.I 13 -8) and all applicable laws. It is an application for bail pending trial. The applicant was represented by Mr. Ernest Kalibala together with Mr. Frederick Mpaga while the state was represented by M/S Florence Akello, principal state attorney and Mr. Brian Kalinaki also principal state attorney from the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The grounds in support of the application are outlined in the affidavit of the applicant, Col (Rtd) Kizza Besigye of Buyinja Zone, Nangabo sub-county, Kasangati in Wakiso district. In summary, they are as follows; 1. That on 13th May 2016, the applicant was charged with the offence of treason in the Chief Magistrates Court of Moroto at Moroto and remanded in custody. 1 2. That on 18th May 2016, the applicant was charged with the offence of treason in the Chief Magistrates court of Nakawa at Nakawa and remanded in custody. 3. That the applicant is a 60 year old responsible and respectable citizen of Uganda, a retired colonel in the Uganda Peoples Defence Forces and former presidential candidate in the 2016 presidential elections where he represented the Forum for Democratic Change, a dully registered political party.
  • The Inspector General of Government and the Question of Political Corruption in Uganda

    The Inspector General of Government and the Question of Political Corruption in Uganda

    Frustrated Or Frustrating S AND P T EA H C IG E R C E N N A T M E U R H H URIPEC FRUSTRATED OR FRUSTRATING? THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF GOVERNMENT AND THE QUESTION OF POLITICAL CORRUPTION IN UGANDA Daniel Ronald Ruhweza HURIPEC WORKING PAPER NO. 20 November, 2008 Frustrated Or Frustrating FRUSTRATED OR FRUSTRATING? THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF GOVERNMENT AND THE QUESTION OF POLITICAL CORRUPTION IN UGANDA Daniel R. Ruhweza HURIPEC WORKING PAPER No. 20 NOVEMBER, 2008 Frustrated Or Frustrating FRUSTRATED OR FRUSTRATING? THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF GOVERNMENT AND THE QUESTION OF POLITICAL CORRUPTION IN UGANDA ­­aniel R. Ruhweza Copyright© Human Rights & Peace Centre, 2008 ISBN 9970-511-24-8 HURIPEC Working Paper No. 20 NOVEMBER 2008 Frustrated Or Frustrating TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...................................................................................... i LIST OF ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS......................………..………............ ii LIST OF LEGISLATION & INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS….......… iii LIST OF CASES …………………………………………………….. .......… iv SUMMARY OF THE REPORT AND MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS……...... v I: INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………........ 1 1.1 Working Definitions….………………............................................................... 5 1.1.1 The Phenomenon of Corruption ……………………………………....... 5 1.1.2 Corruption in Uganda……………………………………………….... 6 II: RATIONALE FOR THE CREATION OF THE INSPECTORATE … .... 9 2.1 Historical Context …………………………………………………............ 9 2.2 Original Mandate of the Inspectorate.………………………….…….......... 9 2.3
  • “Pressing the Right Buttons”

    “Pressing the Right Buttons”

    0013EP “Pressing the Right Buttons” Jennifer Musisi for New City Leadership Epilogue ERIC WEINBERGER AND JORRIT DE JONG As head of the new Kampala Capital City Authority, Jennifer Musisi set her goals high: to increase revenue, fight corruption, and build the City’s financial capacity by creating a sustainable system of fee and tax collection, all while improving overall service delivery. She knew there would be serious resistance to change coming from populist politicians in both government and opposition (in Parliament, in Kampala, and in the KCCA). There would be intransigence from all directions: from her own officials, those in other agencies, powerful commercial forces including the many private collection agents now thrown out of business, and from hundreds of thousands of ordinary Kampalans who struggled to make a living, many of them as transit drivers, street vendors, or other kinds of traders, usually unregulated. Increasing Revenues Musisi’s success at improving collections in Kampala was practically immediate and continued for the first half of her nearly eight years in office. Over those four years, beginning with the 2011-12 fiscal year, overall own-source revenue (OSR) jumped 198 percent: KCCA own-source revenue (OSR) in billions of Ugandan shillings 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 30 39.5 55.06 70.1 80.4 85 85.75 Between FY 2012 and FY 2014, property tax revenues rose from UGX 11 billion to UGX 24 billioni ($3.3 million to $7.2 million), and parking fees (now including taxis) rose from UGX 5 billion to UGX 16 billion ($1.5 million to $4.8 million).
  • Uganda Date: 30 October 2008

    Uganda Date: 30 October 2008

    Refugee Review Tribunal AUSTRALIA RRT RESEARCH RESPONSE Research Response Number: UGA33919 Country: Uganda Date: 30 October 2008 Keywords: Uganda – Uganda People’s Defence Force – Intelligence agencies – Chieftaincy Military Intelligence (CMI) – Politicians This response was prepared by the Research & Information Services Section of the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) after researching publicly accessible information currently available to the RRT within time constraints. This response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum. This research response may not, under any circumstance, be cited in a decision or any other document. Anyone wishing to use this information may only cite the primary source material contained herein. Questions 1. Please provide information on the Uganda Peoples Defence Force (Ugandan Army)/Intelligence Agencies and a branch of the Army called Chieftaincy Military Intelligence, especially its history, structure, key officers. Please provide any information on the following people: 2. Noble Mayombo (Director of Intelligence). 3. Leo Kyanda (Deputy Director of CMI). 4. General Mugisha Muntu. 5. Jack Sabit. 6. Ben Wacha. 7. Dr Okungu (People’s Redemption Army). 8. Mr Samson Monday. 9. Mr Kyakabale. 10. Deleted. RESPONSE 1. Please provide information on the Uganda Peoples Defence Force (Ugandan Army)/Intelligence Agencies and a branch of the Army called Chieftaincy Military Intelligence, especially its history, structure, key officers. The Uganda Peoples Defence Force UPDF is headed by General Y Museveni and the Commander of the Defence Force is General Aronda Nyakairima; the Deputy Chief of the Defence Forces is Lt General Ivan Koreta and the Joint Chief of staff Brigadier Robert Rusoke.
  • Annual Report

    Annual Report

    2017/18 ANNUAL REPORT RESILIENCE AND RECOVERY ABOUT US New Vision Printing & Publishing Company Limited started business in March 1986. It is a multimedia business housing newspapers, magazines, internet publishing, televisions, radios, commercial printing, advertising and distribution services. The Company is listed on the Uganda Securities Exchange. Our Vision A globally respected African media powerhouse that advances society Mission To be a market-focused, performance-driven organisation, managed on global standards of operational and financial efficiency Values • Honesty • Innovation • Fairness • Courage • Excellence • Zero tolerance to corruption • Social responsibility 2 VISION GROUP ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 INTRODUCTION This is the Annual Report of New Vision Printing & Publishing Company Limited trading as Vision Group for the year ended June 30, 2018. This Annual Report includes financial and non-financial information. It sets out the Company’s strategy, financial, operational, governance, social and environmental performance. The Annual Report also contains the risks and opportunities affecting the Company. The purpose of producing an Annual Report is to give the shareholders an annual view of how the Company has performed and what the Board is striving to do on behalf of the shareholders. 1 TABLE OF contENT Notice of Annual General Meeting 4 Company Profile 5 Business Review 15 Board of Directors 19 Chairperson’s Statement 21 Executive Committee 26 CEO’s Statement 27 Corporate Governance Statement 31 Shareholder Information 42 Proxy Card 47 Sustainability Report 50 Accolades 80 Financial Statements 82 2 VISION GROUP ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 LIST OF AcronYMS AGM - Annual General Meeting Annual Report - An annual report is a comprehensive report on a company’s activities including the financial performance throughout the year.
  • EISA Technical ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT UGANDA The

    EISA Technical ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT UGANDA The

    EISA OBSERVER MISSION REPORT i EISA TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT UGANDA THE UGANDAN PRESIDENTIAL AND PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS OF 18 FEBRUARY 2011 ii EISA OBSERVER MISSION REPORT EISA OBSERVER MISSION REPORT iii EISA TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT MISSION REPORT UGANDA THE UGANDAN PRESIDENTIAL AND PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS OF 18 FEBRUARY 2011 2012 iv EISA OBSERVER MISSION REPORT Published by EISA 14 Park Rd, Richmond Johannesburg South Africa P O Box 740 Auckland Park 2006 South Africa Tel: 27 11 381 6000 Fax: 27 11 482 6163 Email: [email protected] www.eisa.org.za ISBN: 978-1-920446-36-9 © EISA 2012 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of EISA. First published 2012 EISA strives for excellence in the promotion of credible elections, participatory democracy, human rights culture, and the strengthening of governance institutions for the consolidation of democracy in Africa. EISA Technical Assessment Mission Report, No. 41 EISA OBSERVER MISSION REPORT v CONTENTS Acknowledgements vii Acronyms and Abbreviations viii Executive Summary ix Terms of Reference of the EISA Technical Assessment Team x Methodology of the Technical Assessment Team xii The EISA Approach to Election Observation xiii 1. Historical and Political Overview 1 1.1 Historical background 1 1.2 Political and electoral background 3 1.3 Elections in Uganda 4 2. Constitutional, Legal & Institutional Framework 7 2.1 Constitutional and legal framework 7 2.2 Electoral framework 9 2.3 The Electoral Commission of Uganda 17 2.4 Other institutions involved in elections 19 2.5 The electoral system 19 2.6 Challenges 20 3.