The losers in the recently concluded Kabalega rally have failed to accept that motorsport ace driver Rajiv Ruparelia outshined them to be crowned the champion of the NRC5 edition in Hoima, two weeks ago.
The Capital Times has since learnt that losers from the race, led by Ronald Ssebuguzi and Duncan Mubiru “Kikankane” have since resorted to engineering malicious campaigns to blackmail Rajiv’s name after failing to admit that they were trounced in right.
We’ve further learnt that the wounded duo further attempted to malign and block the young rally ace victory during the event by petitioning the Clerk of the Course (COC) but were late as the law stipulates.
However, the COC Katende Mukiibi’s report clearly ratified Rajiv’s victory and explained deeply the circumstances why Kikankane and Sebuguzi’s complaint were dust binned after failing to provide evidence as the law requires and also having been raised 30 minutes past time.
“No protests were received. The Crew of Ronald Ssebuguzi / Anthony Mugambwa and the Crew of Duncan Mubiru / Musa Nsubuga attempted to lodge protests at 19:31 hours. Having posted the provisional results at 18:40hrs and the same being signed at 19:28hrs I decline to receive the proposed protests since they were out of the stipulated 30 minutes from the time of posting provisional results,” the COC report reads.
In fining Rajiv’s crew Shs 500,000 on grounds of infringement, Mr Katende admits that imposing a penalty was a huge mistake and “shouldn’t have happened” and must be “refunded.”
“In error, Crew No. 62 was fined of UGX 500,0001= (receipted on FMU receipt No. 025) This I own as having been a mistake and should not have happened. I therefore request the organizing club to liaise with FMU to ensure the crew is refunded the same,” the report adds.
In his report, Mr Katende expressly states that whereas Sebuguzi and Duncan approached him lodging protests against Rajiv, they didn’t have evidence.
“I offered them to provide evidence which up to the end of the event was not delivered. Based on the control report and lack of further evidence of witnesses, I could not place the responsibility of the delay entirely on the crews since it was acting under instruction and supervision of the safety marshal.”