[wanabidii] Stephen Wassira: Historia na alikotoka

 

The ereading in h that occurred in Joseph Warioba v. Stephen Wassira case is distinguishable on the facts. In that case, which was an election petition in the High Court, Stephen Wassira was found to have committed an act of corrupt practice. Even so, the Judge, Lugakingira, J. as he then was, did not certify to the Director of Elections under section 114 of the Elections Act because the Act provided for certification in the case of illegal practices only but not for corrupt practice. The petitioner in that case, Joseph Warioba, was dissatisfied by the failure of the High Court to certify the offence and appealed to the Court of Appeal.

 

         The Court of Appeal asked itself whether the omission to include corrupt practice among the offences which needed to be certified by the High Court to the Director of Elections was deliberate or inadvertent. In its search for an answer the Court looked at the Hansard and the Objects and Reasons of the Bill which had proposed amendments to the Elections Act, including Section 114 of the Elections Act. Eventually it was of the firm view that the omission of the words gcorrupt practice h from section 114 of the Act was inadvertent. Parliament could not have intended to retain reference to illegal practice in section 114 of the Elections Act to empower the elections court to deal with persons found to have committed that offence where the Director of Public Prosecutions did not institute criminal proceedings but exempt people who were found to have committed an act of corrupt practice where the Director of Public Prosecutions did not prosecute. To manifest what was considered the obvious intention of Parliament the Court read into section 114 of the Elections Act the words gcorrupt practice h.