The High Court in Kampala has set September 29, 2026, to rule on an application seeking discovery of election materials in the petition challenging the election of Kawempe Division South Member of Parliament Madina Ntale Nsereko. Justice Faridah Bukirwa fixed the date on Monday after lawyers for petitioner Fred Nyanzi Ssentamu told court that several documents they intend to rely on in prosecuting the petition are in the custody of the Electoral Commission (EC).
Nyanzi argues that this application is important because the former parliamentary candidate is challenging the accuracy and integrity of results that led to Nsereko’s declaration as winner of the January 15, 2026 election.Nsereko was declared winner with 18,591 votes against Nyanzi’s 11,292, giving a 7,299 votes margin.
Nyanzi disputes the declared results and wants the High Court to set aside Nsereko’s election and declare him the duly elected Member of Parliament for Kawempe Division South Constituency. When the matter came before Justice Bukirwa on Monday, the judge said the purpose of the proceedings was to establish the pace of the case, noting that considerable time had elapsed since the petition was filed.
“Today is to set the pace. As you are aware, a lot of time has lapsed. So, preparation on both sides is key,” Bukirwa said. She urged the lawyers to avoid unnecessary arguments and to remain focused on the issues before court, while also reminding them to maintain professional relations.
The judge said she respects advocates and expected the lawyers appearing in the case to reciprocate that respect towards one another. She further directed that disagreements between lawyers that could be resolved outside the courtroom should be taken to her chambers rather than having prolonged arguments in open court.
The proceedings also touched on the role of the media in covering the election petition.
Nyanzi’s lawyer, Alex Luganda, asked the court for guidance on media coverage and other housekeeping issues as the case progresses. Luganda said the parties should consider ways of expediting the hearing, including agreeing on written submissions on some issues, having witnesses appear in court to summarize their evidence. He also raised concerns about journalists recording and live-streaming proceedings.
Luganda argued that the rules governing court proceedings should be protected and proposed that journalists could cover the opening of proceedings and conduct interviews afterwards but should not live-stream the hearing.
Bukirwa said she had no objection to journalists covering the case but indicated that she did not want to be recorded. The judge subsequently directed that there would be no recording of witnesses using any gadget and no live recording of witnesses or their evidence.
Farouk Kasule, a New Vision journalist who was in court, told the judge at her prompting, that he had covered news for about 15 years and understood the importance of reporting court proceedings. He observed that parties to cases sometimes give accounts during interviews outside court that may differ from what is presented before judges.
Bukirwa said the court would seek to strike a balance between the media’s role in informing the public and the need to protect the integrity of judicial proceedings. The court later turned to an application concerning recovery of election materials.
Luganda told court that Nyanzi’s legal team intended to oppose the application. However, Electoral Commission lawyer Abubakar Kayondo said he was not familiar enough with the application to immediately state whether the Commission would support or oppose it.
Kayondo said he needed to understand the application before taking a position. The Lawyer for Nsereko, David Kamukama, told court that the respondent intended to file a reply and would determine her position after considering the application.
Kamukama said his client was out away on official duties and was expected back on Wednesday, after which he would consult her. He added that he was not served. Justice Bukirwa, however, cautioned the lawyers against delaying the proceedings on account of consultations, saying there were several ways in which they could communicate with their clients.
The court then considered the application seeking to access to election documents like declaration forms and results from various polling stations. Luganda told court that many of the documents on which Nyanzi’s legal team intends to rely are in the custody of the Electoral Commission.
Kayondo acknowledged that the Commission is the custodian of the electoral materials but said some of the documents were not immediately available because some officials or persons connected to the materials had travelled to Adjumani for a by-election. He asked the court for more time to facilitate access to the documents.
Bukirwa eventually adjourned the matter to September 29 for a ruling on the application for recovery of election materials via the online system of the Judiciary. The parties were directed to file affidavits of service by September 30 and return to court on that day for hearing of the main case.
The dispute stems from the January 15, 2026 parliamentary election in Kawempe Division South, in which Nsereko, who stood on the NRM ticket, was declared winner with 18,591 votes, while Nyanzi, who contested on the National Unity Platform ticket, obtained 11,292 votes.
Nyanzi’s petition alleges that the election was not conducted in accordance with the Parliamentary Elections Act and that the alleged irregularities substantially affected the result. He alleges that results from 47 polling stations were not included in the final tally despite voting having taken place at those stations.
According to the petition, the 47 polling stations had a combined 32,860 registered voters. Nyanzi contends that failure to include their results disenfranchised the voters and affected the final outcome. He further alleges that the Declaration of Results Forms obtained by his polling agents differ materially from certified copies later issued by the Electoral Commission.
Nyanzi also identifies several polling stations where he alleges that the figures attributed to Nsereko on certified Declaration of Results Forms differ from those contained on the tally sheet. At St James Church polling station, for instance, Nyanzi alleges that the certified Declaration of Results Form showed Nsereko with 37 votes, while the tally sheet allegedly reflected 237 votes.
He makes similar allegations concerning Polio Clinic, Caltech Playground, Mutigwedembe and Kainamula’s Place polling stations. The petitioner alleges that results were switched between him and Nsereko in 20 polling stations and that results from 53 polling stations were subsequently altered or manipulated in favor of Nsereko.
Nyanzi claims that, based on original copies of Declaration of Results Forms obtained from his polling agents, he had 15,996 votes against Nsereko’s 10,267 votes, although he says four polling station forms were taken from his agents by security personnel.
He argues that the alleged irregularities, if proved, substantially affected the election outcome and wants court to nullify Nsereko’s election. He is also asking court to declare him the duly elected Member of Parliament and recommend prosecution of persons found responsible for alleged electoral offences and illegal practices.
Nsereko, however, has denied all the allegations and maintains that she was lawfully elected after obtaining the highest number of valid votes.
In her answer to the petition, Nsereko disputes Nyanzi’s claim that results from 47 polling stations were excluded from the final tally, maintaining that voting, counting and declaration of results took place at all 212 polling stations in the constituency. She also denies allegations that results were switched, altered, manipulated, falsified or forged.
Nsereko maintains that the certified Declaration of Results Forms held by the Electoral Commission represent the true results from the polling stations and that the figures used by the Returning Officer to declare her winner accurately reflected the results transmitted from the respective polling stations.
She further argues that Nyanzi’s own calculations cannot legally displace results certified and declared by the Electoral Commission, whose mandate includes tallying and declaring election results through the Returning Officer. Nsereko through her lawyer David Kamukama has asked the High Court to dismiss Nyanzi’s petition with costs and uphold her election as Member of Parliament for Kawempe Division South.
In an affidavit accompanying her response, Nsereko says she was present at the tally centre throughout the tallying process and that results from the polling stations were read out by Electoral Commission officials in the presence of candidates and their agents. She denies personally or in collusion with any other person switching or interchanging results belonging to candidates.
She also says she is not aware of any alteration, manipulation, falsification or forgery of results from the 53 polling stations cited by Nyanzi.
The EC and the Kampala District Returning Officer are also respondents in the petition.The September 29 ruling will therefore determine the immediate fate of Nyanzi’s request for access to or recovery of the disputed election materials, which his legal team says are necessary to establish the allegations contained in the petition.
Meanwhile several election petitions came up for scheduling and pre-trial conferencing before Justice Allan Nshiimye, with respondents raising preliminary objections that could determine whether some of the cases proceed to full hearing.
In Francis Lubega’s petitition against Makindye MP Kasirye Ali Mulyanyama and the Electoral Commission, the EC argued that the petition had been filed outside the legally prescribed timeframe and that some of the complaints should have been handled by the Commission.The respondents indicated they would raise two preliminary points of law. The matter was adjourned to September 16 at 9:00am.Justice Nshiimye urged parties in election petitions to consider mediation, stressing that the disputes should not be treated as a war and could be resolved amicably.
He also cautioned that cross-examination would only be allowed with the court’s permission and on relevant matters. Audio and video recordings will not be permitted in proceedings before him. In Ivan Bwowe case against Leader of Opposition Joel Ssenyonyi for Nakawa West Constituency, the EC through lawyer John Musiime raised five preliminary points of law, including whether the petitioner had a cause of action, whether he had locus standi and whether the parties had been properly sued.
The parties agreed that witnesses would not be cross-examined because the main issues were legal rather than factual. The case was adjourned to September 17.
Meanwhile, in Waiswa Mufumbiro’s case against Fred Ruhindi for Nakawa East Constituency, court heard that the petitioner was in Luzira Prison despite a production warrant having been issued. The respondents said they intended to challenge the admissibility of documentary evidence. The case was also adjourned to September 17th, with parties directed to prepare brief facts, identify the issues and file a joint memorandum where possible. One of the key issues in contention is disenfranchisement-URN. Give us feedback on this story through our email: kamwokyatimes@gmail.com
