The Civil Division of High Court at Twed Towers has today afternoon heard submissions from both lawyers representing the National Resistance Movement Party (NRM) and those representing James Okori in a suit that the latter, a student at Kampala International University (KIU), filed against Uganda’s ruling party.
In the suit, Okori seeks for a temporary injunction restraining NRM from implementing certain provisions of its recently announced Elections Guidelines of 2015 until the main case, Miscellaneous Cause No. 103 0f 2015 is disposed of. Among the provisions Okori is contesting is the requirement that all aspirants who seek to contest on the NRM ticket in the 2016 general elections must pay nomination fees which in his view are extortionate, as well as a provision which makes it an offence for an NRM member who gets defeated in its primaries to contest as an Independent candidate.
In his opening arguments, Okori’s lead counsel submitted that for a temporary injunction to be granted, four grounds must be proven. He mentioned these grounds as being:
(a) that there is a status quo which needs to be preserved; (b) that the applicant will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; (c) the presence of triable issues (prima facie case) in the main cause; and (d) that the balance of convenience favors the applicant.
On status quo, Okori’s lawyer submitted that NRM’s electoral activities which are being conducted under the challenged regulations have just started. He added that there is a main case (Misc. App. No. 103 of 2015) challenging the legality of those regulations which is still pending before court and that its purpose will be defeated if a temporary injunction is not granted to restrain NRM from implementing the said regulations.
On irreparable harm, the lawyer argued that Okori’s bid right to defend the Constitution against a breach by NRM’s electoral guidelines will be irreparably harmed if court does not issue a temporary injunction against implementation of those regulations.
On prima facie case, Okori’s lawyer referred to the main suit and stated that it raises issues such as whether aspiring candidates are obligated to pay nomination fees or whether NRM can legally preclude its members from participating in its internal elections due to their inability to pay nomination fees, whether the party can legally subject to disciplinary measures any person who stands as an independent candidate in the general elections after being trounced in the primaries, among others. Counsel strongly argued that all these issues indeed prove that a prima facie case has been made out.
On balance of convenience, Okori’s lawyer submitted that the balance of convenience always lies in favour of the party who invokes court process to arrest what appears to be an unlawful act. He cited the case of Ananias Tumukunde v. AG as well as that of Charles Wesley Tusingwire v. AG as the basis of his assertions and invited court to adopt the decisions therein. He added that if NRM actually wins in the main suit, then it can claim the nomination fees from the aspirants as debts.
In reply, Lawyer Kiryowa Kiwanuka who led NRM’s team of lawyers made a passionate submission asserting that none of the triable issues the student raised are fit for judicial review. He stated, for instance, that legality of the requirement to pay nomination fees is not something subject to judicial review.
Counsel Kiryowa added that the on the face of it, the student’s application is “incurably defective” and that the main suit has no chance of success. “My Lord, the applicant before you does not challenge any process concerning the NRM guidelines. To that extent, since judicial review deals with a process, the main application has no chance of success,” – explained NRM’s lead lawyer.
He also stated in response to the issue of status quo that so far, over 15,000 NRM members have shown compliance with the regulations concerning payment of nomination fees so the status quo is that majority of its members are content with the guidelines, and that there are only few days left to the July 31st deadline for the picking of nomination forms.
Under Article 39(10)(d) of the NRM Constitution, stated NRM’s lawyer, the Central Executive Committee is empowered to make guidelines to guide processes such as internal elections.
“The Election Guidelines of 2015 were duly made under powers of that Article so there is nothing illegal about them. In order for an act to be declared illegal, there must be an express provision declaring it so. We submit that there is no such law barring collection of nomination fees.
My Lord, the underlined dispute in this application is a political dispute between the party and a member who wants it to underwrite the cost of his political ambitions within the party.
There is no Constitutional right for any Ugandan to participate in the affairs of NRM.
There is no constitutional right for any Ugandan to be the flag bearer of NRM.” – concluded NRM’s lawyer.
Court is to give its ruling on the matter tomorrow, Friday 24th July 2015 at 3:00pm.
You must be logged in to post a comment.