By Allan Damba
The FUFA Electoral Appeals Committee rejected Mujib Kasule’s petition against the election process citing “lack of evidence” for each of the six points he had expressed dissatisfaction with.
The Proline FC director contested against several issues he termed unfair whose only purpose was to ensure the incumbent is unopposed.
Kasule’s appeal highlighted issues including unrealistic time allocated to fulfil nomination requirements, FUFA employees working as nominators, and two sets of delegates operating unconstitutionally.
Among others were inconsistency in the FUFA statutes and FUFA electoral code, interference in the elections of member bodies and integrity check of the contestants.
According to the judgement delivered on July 19, 2021, the committee chaired by Yusuf Awuye, threw out the petition jeopardizing any of Kasule’s slim plans for the president’s office.
About the petitioner’s issue of insufficient time allocated to return nomination forms, the committee responded that the road map for the electoral process had been published three months earlier granting sufficient preparation time.
“The electoral committee further submitted that it published the entire Electoral roadmap three months before the candidates picked nomination forms,” read part of the defence.
The committee also responded that it is clear all the candidates that expressed interest had been given the same time for submitting fully-filled nomination forms.
They further highlight that an extension to the stipulated time had been allowed to one candidate who had as well deemed the time insufficient but had asked for the extension.
“The electoral committee further submitted that all candidates were allocated the same time. One of the candidates requested for more time within which to return the forms, and an extension was duly granted.”
About the appellant’s issue regarding the integrity check of the candidates, the committee responded that whatever they did was done within the statutes.
“FUFA electoral code governing FUFA elections do not provide for an elaborative procedure of integrity check. Therefore, integrity check questionnaires verified by Commissioner for oaths were sufficient,” the ruling read.
In Kasule’s appeal where he expressed dissatisfaction with the two sets of delegates that he says contravenes the law, the committee shows his claim is only an allegation that lacks evidence.
“The FUFA electoral committee submitted that all the regional association delegates and all the special interest groups delegates were elected per the respective association statutes.”
“According to the records, all the said delegates were elected in April 2017, and their respective terms ended in April 2021,” it added.
In a further twist, the petitioner had highlighted that the Regional CEOs who are employed by FUFA could not risk their employment by nominating a different candidate.
“The Electoral committee further submitted that the appellant did not furnish any proof that any CEO of a regional FA refused to nominate his candidature for fear of losing their respective employment,” responded the committee.
Kasule also challenged the nomination of the third vice president who he claims that only a chairman, CEO of a UPL club may be nominated by a first division league club.
In committee responded: “The committee finds that there are no specific requirements in the FUFA statutes which stipulates that for one to be nominated for FUFA third Vice president must be chairman or CEO of a first division club.”
In the burning case of interference in the elections of its members by the FUFA electoral committee, the committee rubbished the claim as well.
“The electoral committee submitted that it is mandated by the FUFA statutes and FUFA electoral code to manage the elections of members of FUFA. That it is not true that every member of FUFA had to organize its elections independently,” the appeals committee ruled.
Questions have time and again been raised about the Independence or rather dependence of arms within FUFA and many have claimed strong interference by the incumbent but, until proven guilty, one will always be deemed innocent.