The National Resistance Movement (NRM) party believes lawyer Male Mabirizi’s petition to the Supreme Court asking Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo to quit the bench on grounds of bias will not stand, just like the earlier petition to amend the grounds failed.

Male Mabirizi wrote to the Chief Justice (CJ) Owiny Dollo asking him to recuse himself from the panel of the nine Justices who are going to hear the presidential petition filed by National Unity Platform (NUP) former presidential candidate Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu alias Bobi Wine.

However, the NRM legal director, Counsel Oscar Kihika, confidently contends that the Male Mabirizi petition does not meet the requisite standards.

In his letter dated February 11^th, 2021, received by the office of the Chief Justice Dollo, Mabirizi based on article 3 of the Constitution and paragraphs 1, 11(i), XXVI, XXIX(a) and (f) of the National objectives and Directives principles of state policy to protect the Constitution, promote Rule of law and fight abuse of authority.

Mabirizi alleges that in 2006, Dollo, who was then a practicing private lawyer, was on the team of lawyers who represented President Yoweri Museveni against Dr. Kizza Besigye, Electoral Commission and the Attorney General.

“Your participation erodes the confidence not only in you but the entire Judiciary because judgement must be rooted in confidence and confidence is destroyed when right minded people go away thinking ‘the judge was biased’,” he noted.

Kihika however, reaffirmed that whatever happens in whichever way, the NRM is ready to take it on because the party’s legal team started preparations to defend President Museveni’s victory long before the petitioners filed their affidavits.

While speaking to journalists during the party’s weekly media briefing on Sunday, Kihika said that it was because of this early preparation that they were able to win the first round of the petition where court squashed the petitioners’ attempt to amend their earlier filing.

The Supreme Court, sitting in Kampala last week, refused former presidential candidate Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu’s application to amend his suit by including new grounds.

Justice Stella Arach Amoko, who read the unanimous ruling, dismissed Kyagulanyi’s application on grounds that the issues he intended to add to the petition had already been included in the original petition.

The 9 justices of the Supreme Court advised Kyagulanyi’s legal team led to file evidence by affidavits to prove the grounds they raised in the original petition.

Yesterday, the team representing President Museveni received affidavits to enable them resume their work in filing defense.

Kihika told journalists that on Thursday the Supreme court in pre-trial conference gave the petitioners up to today (Sunday) to file their affidavits of the claims in which they challenge the 14th January presidential election results.

“As you are already aware, on Thursday there was conferencing to set out the time table of activities in this petition. The Supreme court gave up to today 14th February 2021 for the petitioners to file their affidavits in support of the petition,” Kihika said.

He further stated that the first respondent, who is the President, the second respondent in this case the Electoral Commission and the third respondent who is the Attorney General, have up to Saturday  February 20^th, 2021 to file in all their affidavits in response.

“We, the respondents, on the other hand, the court ordered us to file all our affidavits in response by next Saturday. But we continue to do our work in defense of this petition. But very crucially we are waiting to see how many affidavits are going to be filed today by the petitioners. The number of affidavits is the one that determines the volume of work that is on our hands,” Kihika added.

Kyagulanyi’s petition filed on Monday February 1^st, 2021, seeks annulment of the results of last month’s presidential election that handed incumbent Yoweri Museveni the victory, citing 26 grounds on which they base their petition, including ballot stuffing, intimidation of NUP agents and supporters, pre-ticked ballot papers, voter bribery and others.

However, according to Kihika, the petition is based on hearsay and cannot stand in court.

By Baron Kironde