{UAH} Allan/Pojim/WBK: What did Mbabazi hope to achieve in court?

http://www.observer.ug/viewpoint/43538-what-did-mbabazi-hope-to-achieve-in-court

What did Mbabazi hope to achieve in court?

Written by MOSES KHISA

Last Thursday's Supreme court ruling upholding the otherwise fraudulent February 18 election of General Museveni did not surprise many Ugandans, for at least two reasons.

First, even from a layman watching from a distance, the legal team of the petitioner, Mr Amama Mbabazi, made a poor presentation. They displayed ill-preparedness and gross inadequacy in prosecuting the petition. The failure to present a watertight case and adduce incontrovertible evidence was largely blamed on the raid on the chambers of two of the three law firms behind the petition.

Apparently, the late night break-ins at lawyers Fred Muwema and Mohmed Mbabazi's chambers led to loss of crucial evidence: sworn affidavits and other documentary material set to be tendered in court the following day.

It was a trifle curious that during submissions and arguments in court, lawyers of the first and second respondents, Museveni and the Electoral Commission respectively, incessantly told court that the petitioner had no evidence. This was said with so much confidence and emphasis, perhaps suggesting that they had in their safe custody the evidence that would have been before court!

Undoubtedly, the petitioner's legal team floundered and struggled in court, but the overall political environment in which the petition was filed and heard should have been of concern to the nine men and women sitting in the nation's highest court. For no justifiable legal ground, Museveni's main challenger, in fact the man many believe won the polls, was imprisoned in his house.

For several days after polling day, even the eventual petitioner, Amama Mbabazi, was under siege at his house. The political atmosphere was clouded in blatant display of militarism and brute force.

Would-be witnesses were being arrested and intimidated. On polling day and the days after, a paranoid regime with an insecure president, acting through the command of a partisan head of police, shut down social media and mobile money services, effectively blocking civil society vigilance and opposition efforts at countering and exposing electoral fraud.

All these infractions and outright criminal acts happened in the full view of the world, attested to by election observers who uncharacteristically denounced the outcome of the election. Yet, on their part, the honourable justices of the court feigned ignorance and wanted evidence to show that Museveni was not validly elected.

The second, and perhaps most important, reason why many were not surprised with the court's verdict is the composition of the bench. It is a fact that at least four of the nine-member carom of the court are individuals who were previously cadres of the Museveni establishment, and worked at the defunct Movement Secretariat, or were deeply involved in managing political affairs of the regime.

The question then is, would such individuals have the courage and independence of mind to overturn Museveni's election regardless of the amount of indicting evidence before them and however stellar a performance the lawyers would mount? We know that in 2006 when five out of seven judges mustered the courage to annul that year's election, two were unduly influenced to change their position in favour of upholding the result.

Now, more than anyone else, Amama Mbabazi knew these dynamics all too well having been a key player in previous shady practices. What then did he hope to achieve by petitioning court, well aware that: (a) the petition would be frustrated by foul play on the part of state agencies and operatives working for his opponent, and (b) the bench had only recently been 'packed' with 'cadre' judges?

The summary of the ruling availed to the public last week has an interesting thread running through – the judges found more credibility and persuasion in the evidence and counterarguments presented by lawyers of Museveni and the EC than in those of the petitioner.

What was the source of this credible and persuasive evidence and arguments? Affidavits by officials of the EC, the NRM secretariat, the military, government technocrats, and other individuals who are either supporters of the incumbent or government employees whose work was being questioned in the court.

Between the petitioner and those he was suing, it was always going to be one side's word against the other and to say that one is more believable than the other is fundamentally subjective.

The only way the court would arrive at a fair and accurate conclusion of the dispute was to entertain evidence and listen to submissions by independent bodies such as election observers, professionals, and experts on the different aspects of wrongdoing surrounding the election.

Without soliciting and receiving independent and verifiable evidence, how did the court arrive at the conclusion that Museveni was validly elected? Because the EC convinced it! 
moses.khisa@gmail.com 
The author is a PhD candidate and teaching assistant at the department of Political Science, Northwestern University, USA.

What did Mbabazi hope to achieve in court?

http://www.observer.ug/viewpoint/43538-what-did-mbabazi-hope-to-achieve-in-court

‎

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.