The ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) Director of Legal Affairs, Oscar Kihika has accused former presidential candidate, Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu aka Bobi Wine of failure to produce in court any evidence that his National Unity Platform (NUP) party head offices in Kampala were sieged by security forces after the elections.
In his petition filed to the Supreme Court seeking the annulment of January 14 presidential election, Kyagulanyi argued that some of his evidence was in his party offices which were besieged by Police and the army, that could not allow anybody to get in.
Kyagulanyi, has since decided to withdraw the petition accusing the Court of not being impartial and independent.
The grounds he based on to withdraw the petition included; disappearance of his witnesses on grounds that they are abducted by the State, infringement on the privacy of his witnesses by National Identification and Registration Authority (NIRA), Court rejecting some of his evidence, failure by three Supreme Court Justices including Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny Dollo to excuse themselves from hearing his petition among others.
However, in a sworn affidavit by the NRM Director of Legal Affairs Oscar Kihika, he said Bobi Wine did not have evidence to most of the claims his lawyers made in Court.
For instance, Kihika said that Bobi Wine didn’t provide evidence that his NUP offices were besieged by the security forces after the elections.
“Paragraph 17 of Affidavit of the applicant is false. I know that the applicant has not provided any evidence of the alleged seizure of his political party offices or of the alleged involvement of the 1st Respondent (Museveni) other than the bare allegation,” Kihika said in his Affidavit.
Contrary to paragraphs 18 and 19 of the affidavit of the applicant (Kyagulanyi), Kihika also said that the Court has acted impartially and independent, and that each party has been accorded fair opportunity to present its case in accordance with the law.
Kihika further dismissed Kyagulanyi claims that the latter was unable to meet his lawyers when he was put under house arrest for 11 days after the polls.
“I know that it is false for the applicant to claim that he did not have access to his advocates during the time his movements were restricted. I know that the applicant’s Advocate, Turyamusiima Geoffrey, in his supplementary Affidavit in support of the application to amend the petition, averred that he was in phone contact with the applicant at all times during the period of restriction. In the Affidavit of the 3rd Respondent sworn by the Deputy Attorney General, he attached a register book clearly showing that the applicant met his lawyers as early as 21st January 2021,” said Kihika.
The NRM lawyer also accused Kyagulanyi, NUP party officials and some of his lawyers of subjecting the Court to “insult and public ridicule in the media” before and during the Court proceedings.
“I know that the applicant conducted himself with total lack of decorum and with contempt of this Court when he participated in an interview on Monday 23rd February 2021 that I listened to on the BBC World Service Radio, where the applicant stated to the international audience that his motive for going to Court was to expose lack of independence and bias of this Court, and he was now taking the matter to the Court of public opinion.”
Furthermore, Kihika said that the content of paragraph 12 of the affidavit of the applicant (Kyagulanyi) alleging abduction of witnesses is “a false claim which is irrelevant to the current application” as evidenced to be relied upon.
He also made reference to the National Identification documents and particulars of Kyagulanyi witnesses whose signatures were found to be “forged,” and were attached to the respective Affidavits filed by Kyagulanyi.
“I know that the findings by the forensic document examiner of forgery of signatures on the Affidavits submitted by the applicant, have not been challenged, contradicted or controverted by the applicant,” said Kihika.
It should be noted that last week, Sylvia Chelangat, a forensic document examiner in the Directorate of Forensic Services Department under the Uganda Police Force who is also Attorney General’s witness in the petition, testified in her sworn statement that some of the affidavits filed by the petitioner (Kyagulanyi) bear fake signatures.
In her sworn statement, Chelangat testified that on 17th February 2021, the Directorate of Forensic Services received a letter from the Solicitor General requesting police to verify signatures of some people that had sworn affidavits in support of Bobi Wine’s petition.
She stated that upon receipt of the request, the Forensic Document Examiner proceeded to the National Identification and Registration Authority (NIRA) to extract the enrolment documents of the persons named in attachment to the Solicitor General’s letter.
NIRA, she said, granted the Directorate of Forensic Services, certified copies of the enrolment forms and photographs bearing the signatures of the purported authors.
Chelangat noted that they carefully examined the questioned signatures in exhibit 1 – 15 and then compared them with sample signatures on exhibits 1A to 15A using scientific analytical methods of VSC 5000 (Video Spectral Comparator), sketching and visual observation method and observations that are now captured in their report dated 18th February 2021.
“In know that the questioned signatures attributed to Nahoniiwe Ham, Akankwasa Edward, Lokii Francis Kiyonga, Namata Ruth, Mugalya Faizo Isanga, Mbabazi Moses and Byamukama Allan are fundamentally different from the sample signatures of Nahoniiwe Ham, Akankwasa Edward, Lokii Francis Kiyonga, Namata Ruth, Mugalya Faizo, Isanga Mbabazi Moses and Byamukama Allan in design and manner of execution of letters and strokes, connecting strokes, commencement and terminal strokes, shapes, structures, loop formation, relative sizes and proportions of strokes and level of graphic maturity among others,” Chelangat testified in her sworn statement.
“Based on the above observations and the nature of the documents examined, we have established that there is strong evidence to show that the authors of the sample signatures in the names of Nahoniiwe Ham, Akankwasa Edward, Lokii Francis Kiyonga, Namata Ruth, Mugalya Faizo Isanga, Mbabazi Moses and Byamukama Allan did not sign the questioned signatures attributed to them,” she added.