KAMPALA, UGANDA | THE INDEPENDENT | The runner-up in the Kawempe North parliamentary elections, Faridah Nambi Kigongo, has accused the winner, Nalukoola Luyimbazi, of interfering with her witnesses and coercing them to retract the statements/evidence they had given in support of her petition.
Nambi’s petition seeks to nullify Nalukoola’s election mainly on the grounds of voter bribery, which was supported by several people.
However, when the case came up for conferencing before High Court Civil Division Judge Bernard Namanya, Nambi, through her lawyers led by Ahmed Kalule, raised a preliminary point of law.
Kalule said that they have issues with three affidavits made by Nalukoola in response to or while defending the accusations against him. He said these affidavits, including Jjemba Nathan Muwanguzi, Mawumbe George William and Ben Mukasa Ntale, were originally supporting Nambi’s petition to show how Nalukoola bribed voters in several polling stations, but they have now retracted what they said.
Court heard Jjemba and Mawumbe on April 9th, 2025, they swore affidavits in support of the petition, which they filed in court on behalf of Nambi. They were then subsequently approached by Nalukoola’s lawyers and Ben Mukasa Ntale and swore affidavits in support of Nalukoola’s defence instead, saying that their signatures had reportedly been forged and that some had been coerced to support Nambi’s application.
Kalule reported to the Judge that the conduct of approaching her clients’ witnesses and making them retract is unlawful and is contrary to Rule 19 of the Advocates’ Professional Conduct.
According to Kalule, the ideal is that Nalukoola’s counsel should have waited for the witnesses in the court and then cross-examined them.
To support his case, Kalule told Justice Namanya to refer to the case of Member of Parliament Kintu Brandon vs Walyomu Moses and Electoral Commission, where the Court of Appeal held that the conduct of the opposite Counsel to approach someone’s witnesses to do retraction was illegal and would lead to disciplinary proceedings.
Kalule maintained that Nalukoola and his lawyers should have waited for cross-examination to test the credibility of those witnesses.
As if this precedent was not enough, Kalule further relied on the case of former MP Moses Attan Vs Herbert Edmund Ariko, where the former was thrown out of parliament over election malpractices and the lawyers were equally blamed in the case on issues related to approaching of opposite party’s witnesses.
As such, Nambi’s lawyer has asked the court to strike out the affidavits sworn in retraction, emphasising that it is wrong and unprofessional for the party to approach the other party’s witnesses and then tell witnesses to retract their affidavits because they infringe on the right to defence.
However, lawyer Muhammed Mbabazi, who is the lead lawyer of Nalukoola, said punishing all these lawyers would be unfair as they don’t go on the ground to hunt for witnesses, but were brought to them.
However, on this, the Judge advised Mbabazi not to focus so much on the punishments, but mainly on the accusations of approaching witnesses.
Mbabazi then said they needed more time to respond to the preliminary point of law by Nambi through her lawyers.
Earlier, before Kalule raised a preliminary point of law, Nalukoola’s lawyer, George Musisi, informed the Court that their client has six more affidavits to file.
He said there is some information in possession of the Electoral Commission that they seek to rely on in this petition. Musisi noted that they have requested 35 copies of declaration forms from the Commission for which they paid for on April 4th 2025, as well as the voters’ register used in the election.
Yesterday, we were informed that the Secretary has yet to sign them off. In the premises, we request the court for more time to file more affidavits and those documents”, said Musisi.
Further, the Electoral Commission is in charge of Litigation lawyer Eric Sabiiti also requested more time to file additional documents by Monday next week.
“My Lord, with your permission, the request by Nalukoola, to have certified copies, the Electoral Commission undertakes to have it expedited and not later than Monday next week”, said Sabiiti.
But Nambi’s lawyer, Kalule, said that this delay shouldn’t stop them from doing the conferencing today. Kalule insisted that the majority of the affidavits are on the court file, and they can proceed, and when the other affidavits are brought, they go directly to the hearing of the merits of the case. ‘
Consequently, the case was adjourned to Monday, May 5th 2025, for Nalukoola’s lawyers to make a response to the preliminary objection by Nambi.
The Electoral Commission gazetted Nalukoola Luyimbazi of the National Unity Platform as the winner of the March 13th 2025, elections with 17,939 votes against NRM’s Nambi’s 9,058 votes.
Dissatisfied with these election results, Nambi, about a month ago, petitioned the High Court Civil Division seeking an order for another fresh by-election.
Nambi listed the Electoral Commission as the second respondent, saying there was disenfranchisement of voters at 14 polling stations whose results were never counted during the computation of results.
“At Mbogo Primary School Play Ground (KAT MAJ) polling station, the 1st Respondent(Nalukoola) campaigned among voters who turned up to vote at that polling station by chanting his political party slogan “People Power, Our Power” and telling voters to vote for him. He told the voters lined up to vote that yenze Nalukoola, loosely translated as “it’s me Nalukoola”, reads the petition.
According to Nambi, the Electoral Commission failed to ensure that polling takes place in a free and secure environment, contrary to section 60(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act.
The Commission is also accused of failure to count the votes cast at the impugned polling stations and record the results in Declaration of Results Forms, and failure to collect and transmit the results of the impugned polling stations contrary to section 70 of the Parliamentary Elections Act.
Other accusations include failing to keep safe custody of the electoral materials and documents used at the election contrary to section 71 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, Cap 177, failure to adjourn or postpone the counting of votes at the impugned polling stations, and the tallying of the results of the election contrary to section 76 of the Parliamentary Elections Act.
“The forestated failure and non-compliance, accordingly, disenfranchised the voters at the abovementioned polling stations, including Your Petitioner, who is a registered voter at Mbogo Primary School Play Ground (NAMAU – NSA) polling station”.
However, the Electoral Commission in its defence filed by the in Charge of Litigation Lawyer Eric Sabiti says the declaration of the winning candidate was based on verifiable results from respective polling stations.
The Commission emphasises that all electoral materials and documents are kept in safe custody and form the basis for the declaration of the winning candidate.
The response to the petition is supported by an Affidavit of the Electoral Commission’s Returning Officer, Makabayi Henry, who stated that he opened the envelopes and added up the number of votes cast for each candidate in the presence of candidates, agents, a police officer, and all other stakeholders present.
The Commission has denied all allegations of irregularities that were levied against it by Nambi. She contends that the election was conducted by the constitution and electoral laws.
According to the Commission, the election was free, fair, administered in an impartial, neutral, efficient, accurate, accountable, and verifiable manner, contrary to Nambi’s accusations.
The Commission thus dismissed claims of bribery, including allegations that the winning candidate’s agents gave out bread, soap, salt, rice, tea leaves, and money to voters like Kibuka Mary Diana, Mawumbe George William, and Wamukubira Geoffrey, labelling them as “afterthoughts.
According to the Electoral Commission, Nambi’s petition is not only frivolous but also lacks merit and should be dismissed with costs.
The Commission contends that if at all, there were any potential irregularities, those irregularities did not substantially affect the final election outcome.
****
URN
