ACCU: Anti Corruption Coalition Uganda

An average Ugandan familiar with our ‘policy corruption’ would at a glance suspect the rationale for the proposed Electoral Reforms. Let us examine some aspects of the reform in order to understand the point that I am raising, which has pre-occupied the Chairman in the last one week to justify.

I will for obvious reasons, omit my comment on  a statement made in their 1st September, 2009 Document to one of the media houses that reads: whatever the shortcomings are, there is no debate that the Presidential, General Parliamentary and Local Government elections in Uganda are conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Laws. The comment was already given in the Supreme Court ruling on the Conduct of 2006 Elections, so it suffices to refer to it and ignore the EC’s rhetoric.

Section 25(2) of the EC Act requires that voters’ register shall be displayed for a period of 21 days.  However, the EC recommends here that this period be reduced to 15 from 21days, arguing they need the other five days to clean up the issues raised during the display period. This recommendation is also meant to correct the disenfranchisement charge that the Supreme Court ruling of 2006 found the EC guilty of. One wonders why this period should be reduced rather increased! Why should there be a rush at this level? Is the spirit of the display not to correct the errors associated with the display and ensure that eligible voters are not disenfranchised again? Does a legal reform disallow a proposal for an increment in the display period where there is sufficient reason for it?

Declaration of Results: The EC recommends that the reports by Returning Officers may be submitted up to a week. At a face value it appears acceptable, but we are dealing with the Electoral Commission that we know well. This provision is subject to manipulation, in fact once the results are already declared the reports can also be fixed retrospectively to cohere with the pronounced results. What safeguards are there to deal with the negative effect of it?

Conduct of by–elections: Section 171 of the Local Government Act provides that where a seat of a District Chairman or Councilor falls vacant, the Clerk to Council shall notify the Commission within 21 days, and a by–election is held within 60 days. The EC is recommends that this period be increased from 60 days to 6 months. They argue that they have no mechanism of accessing information about a vacancy in time other than through press reports. This justification is trivializing of a task of the commission.

This is a vote of no confidence on the Clerks by EC, whose authority they lack or else the EC is pleading guilty of incompetence. The provision is clear about the channel of obtaining the said information. The Clerks are not at liberty here it is mandatory for them to comply. If the Commission is genuinely concerned here, why don’t they reduce the days for Clerk’s notification from 21 days to 10 days as applies to vacancies for Members of Parliament? There seems to be no convincing justification for half a year’s long wait to conduct a by-election at the district level.

Provisional Registration: The EC recommends that persons under 18 years may be provisionally registered to vote. They are begging the question here, because the mechanism that would provide the reliable data for this exercise is not yet in place. Who will determine the age? How objective would this exercise be? Many under age have already been used in elections before and this proposal is meant to legalize this practice. What has happened with the activities that ought to have preceded and informed, and supported this proposal such as the national ID project, national census etc.

Tenure of the Electoral Commission: The Commission recommends that their tenure in office be increased to that of Judges. It does not state the category – Supreme, High Court etc. However, the proposal is ridiculous because it is the same Commission that claimed being and acting independently as guaranteed by the Constitution. Is independence of an Agency synonymous with a judge’s tenure in office? I fail to see their point here, Is EC’s independence compromised or undermined by the fact that they work only seven years or fourteen at most? Is tenure in office a necessary factor in the meaning of the term independence of an institution? Is it logical to conclude that the EC has not been acting constitutionally and independently because they fear to lose their jobs?