(2018) 2 African Human Rights Yearbook 101 rather than using it as an aid in the interpretation of relevant Ugandan law. Finally, in Oloka Onyango,62 the Constitutional Court also recognised that the Women’s Rights Protocol had been one of the instruments invoked by the petitioners in their constitutional challenge to the 2014 Anti-Homosexuality Act.63 As noted above, however, the Court eventually nullified the Act on a technical ground: the absence of quorum in Parliament at the time of its passage. 3.4 The African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance We could find only two instances – both relating to parliamentary election petitions, and rendered on the same day by High Court Judge Rubby Opio Aweri (as he then was) – in which a court referred to the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance (Democracy Charter). In Akidi Margaret v Adong Lilly and Electoral Commission,64 Judge Opio Aweri observed that the world was ‘now a global village’ in which the ‘global family’ of the world was interested in the social, political and economic life of each country, including Uganda.65 In this regard, he noted that Uganda was bound by a number of international treaties on democracy and good governance, including the Democracy Charter.66 Judge Opio Aweri also invoked the Democracy Charter in Toolit Simon Akecha v Oulanyah Jacob L’Okori and Electoral Commission.67 In this case, he observed that Chapter 7 of the Charter required that states hold democratic elections, and that article 17 of the Charter obliged states to hold transparent, free and fair elections in accordance with the AU’s Declaration on the principles Governing Democratic elections in Africa.68 He further noted that, to achieve this, states were mandated: i) to establish and strengthen independent and important national electoral bodies responsible for the management of elections; ii) to establish and strengthen national mechanisms that redress election – related disputes in a timely manner; iii) to ensure fair and equitable access by contesting parties and candidates to State controlled media during elections; and iv) to ensure that there is a binding Code of Conduct governing legally recognised political stakeholders, government and other political actors prior, during and after elections, which Code had to include a commitment by political stakeholders to accept the results of elections or challenge them 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 n 52. At 5 of the decision. Election Petition 4 of 2011. At 5. At 6. Election Petition 1 of 2011. At 8-9.