The two respondents in the Buhweju LC V Chairperson election petition have asked the High Court in Bushenyi to expunge video, audio and photographic evidence submitted by the petitioner, arguing that the electronic materials were not properly authenticated.
The application was made during the hearing of the petition filed by Phillip Muhamya seeking to overturn the January 2026 Buhweju District LC V Chairperson election results, in which Deogratious Atuhaire was declared the winner with 22,231 votes against Muhamya’s 19,754. Atuhaire and the Electoral Commission are the first and second respondents, respectively.
Atuhaire’s lawyer, Cohen Amanya Kyampene, asked the court to remove the electronic materials from the evidence list, arguing that the petitioner was required to provide certificates of extraction and authenticity for the recordings and photographs. Kyampene said the respondents were objecting to documents marked 57 to 63, comprising photographs, audio and video recordings attached to paragraph 50 of Volume One of the petitioner’s affidavit.
He argued that Sections 65B and 67 of the Evidence Act, as amended, require electronic evidence to meet specific requirements relating to authentication and attestation. Kyampene said the affidavits and electronic materials presented to court had been annexed to affidavits of persons who were not the deponents in the petition, raising questions about their authenticity and admissibility.
Counsel for the Electoral Commission, Abel Mandela Nkunda, also asked the court to expunge the videos, photographs and other electronic materials attached to the various affidavits. Nkunda based his objection on Section 6 of the Electronic Transactions Act, which provides requirements concerning the authenticity and integrity of data messages.
He also challenged the manner in which the electronic materials were handled, arguing that there was no affidavit from the person who extracted the recordings and photographs. Nkunda said the materials were introduced through affidavits sworn by polling agents of the petitioner without accompanying documentation demonstrating compliance with the requirements for electronic evidence.
He argued that the court could therefore not be satisfied about the authenticity and integrity of the electronic evidence. However, counsel for Muhamya, Andrew Byamukama, opposed the application, arguing that Section 65B of the Evidence Act requires the court to consider the nature of the case and whether the opposing party was aware that the evidence would be produced before court.
Byamukama argued that it would therefore be premature to expunge the evidence without first considering the provisions of the law. He also cited Section 67 of the Evidence Act, saying that where a document is required by law to be attested, it should not be admitted until an attesting witness has been called to prove its execution, authenticity, accuracy or admissibility.
Lady Justice Mary Ikit fixed Tuesday at 8 a.m. to deliver a ruling on the objection to the electronic evidence and to give further directions on when the substantive hearing of the petition will commence. Earlier, Paul Tusubira, another lawyer representing the first respondent, asked the court to allow him to withdraw from the case, citing a conflict of interest.
Tusubira told the court that he had commissioned some of the affidavits on behalf of the Electoral Commission that were later filed in the case, which he said was contrary to court procedures. Counsel for the petitioner did not object to the application, and Justice Ikit allowed Tusubira to withdraw from the matter-URN. Give us feedback on this story through our email: kamwokyatimes@gmail.com
