Lawyers for Mukono Municipality Member of Parliament Betty Bakireke Nambooze have asked the High Court to expunge several affidavits and pieces of evidence filed by the petitioner challenging her January 2026 election victory. Led by Medard Lubega Ssegona, Nambooze’s legal team on Thursday raised preliminary objections before Justice Godfrey Himbaza.
They argued that the contested material was filed out of time, failed to meet statutory requirements, and lacked proper authentication. The petition was filed by NRM candidate Dr Sarah Daisy Nabatanzi Ssonko, who lost the seat to Nambooze of the National Unity Platform by 22,691 votes to 5,753. Ssonko alleges electoral irregularities, including voter bribery and chaos during the polls.
Ssegona specifically targeted affidavits sworn by Ssonko herself, Faridah Nalubowa, and Patrick Musoke, among others. He told the court that the time prescribed by law for filing such evidence had already elapsed without the required procedures being followed. He questioned Musoke’s claim to be a journalist operating a Facebook page called MP Media.
Ssegona argued that Musoke lacks the professional qualifications of a journalist, has not undergone relevant training, and runs a page that holds no licence from the Uganda Communications Commission. Ssegona further objected to video clips from a YouTube channel purportedly belonging to BBS Terefayina that Ssonko played in court.
He said the petitioner failed to produce the original recordings or identify who recorded them, contrary to the requirements of the Electronic Transactions Act. The defence also invoked the Illiterates Protection Act. Ssegona insisted that documents involving persons who may not fully understand English must clearly show that a licensed interpreter translated the contents and signed the papers before a commissioner for oaths.
Among other affidavits challenged were those of Balikyewunya Mukasa, Nkumbitebbawelimye Mwebaza, Kiwanuka Simon Peter, Katongole Muhammad, Nabagereka Halima, Wyclif Mulambo, Joseph Yiga, Ssebudde Kashim, Ssentongo Hamidu Kyeyune, and Okia David.
Ssegona said these introduced new evidence late in the process and that the same individual, Tomusange Abdul, had both translated and commissioned them without adequate disclosure of his credentials or address.
Ssonko’s lawyers, led by Aaron Buyinza of Crane Associated Advocates and supported by Muhammad Kalule Mukasa and Kiberu Malik, opposed the application. They described the objections as an attempt to clutch at straws and argued that the Civil Procedure Rules cited by the respondents do not strictly apply to election petition pleadings at this stage.
Citing Supreme Court decisions including Kyagulanyi v Museveni and Lydia Wanyoto v Electoral Commission, Kalule maintained that parties may continue filing affidavits before the scheduling conference, particularly in matters of public interest. He said questions about the weight of evidence, witness qualifications, or alleged procedural defects should be tested during the hearing rather than used to strike out material at the preliminary stage.
Kalule further submitted that any failure to seal annexures was a curable defect and that translation and commissioning by the same person was not necessarily irregular, relying on earlier election petition authorities.
Justice Himbaza fixed 28 September 2026 for his ruling on the application to expunge the contested affidavits and attachments. He adjourned and fixed the main petition hearing to 19, 20, 21, and 22 of next month, after which he will determine the petition.
Ssonko maintains she has sufficient evidence to prove her case and that the opposing arguments lack substance. Nambooze’s team insists the law must be strictly followed and that improperly introduced material cannot form part of the court record.
The petition continues to attract close attention in Mukono Municipality, where the January 2026 contest was among the most closely watched in the district-URN. Give us feedback on this story through our email: kamwokyatimes@gmail.com
