Nalukoola urges court to dismiss Nambi’s objection in Kawempe North election case

The High court in Kampala is set to rule on a key legal dispute in the election petition filed by Faridah Nambi, the former Kawempe North parliamentary candidate, against the incumbent MP, Elias Luyimbazi Nalukoola.

At the centre of the dispute is a preliminary objection raised by Nambi, who claims that three of her witnesses were tampered with and coerced into changing their testimonies.

Nambi, who lost the March 13, 2025 by-election to Nalukoola, alleges that her rival engaged in voter bribery and other electoral malpractices. She filed a petition seeking the nullification of his victory.

However, the legal battle has shifted focus to the status of conflicting affidavits presented by witnesses. On Monday, Nalukoola, through his legal team led by Alex Luganda, asked the High court to dismiss Nambi’s objection.

Luganda argued that Nambi’s claims of witness coercion are unfounded, and that the affidavits in question either were never made or do not support her assertions. He said the current dispute was premature and urged the court to let the main petition proceed to full hearing.

“Our client is being condemned unheard,” Luganda told Justice Benard Namanya.

He added that only one of the contested witnesses, Ben Lutale Mukasa, had any past connection to the case and insisted that he had never sworn an affidavit in support of Nambi.

Luganda further noted that one of the other witnesses, George Mawumbe, had confirmed that he neither supported Nambi’s petition nor was present in Kawempe on voting day. Luganda dismissed the relevance of Rule 19 of the Advocates’ Professional Conduct Regulations, which Nambi’s legal team had cited.

The rule bars advocates from engaging in tampering or influencing witnesses. But, according to Luganda, this situation did not amount to misconduct under the rule.

He said Uganda’s legal framework does not explicitly prohibit recanting affidavits, and maintained that disputes over witness credibility should be resolved during cross-examination in open court.

Quoting a Supreme court precedent, Luganda argued that the focus should be on how the original affidavits were obtained, not simply the existence of revised statements.

Another member of Nalukoola’s legal team, Remmy Bagyenda, echoed these sentiments, noting that witnesses often become hostile and change their testimony, a reality courts must be prepared to manage.

Lawyer Samuel Muyizzi Mulindwa, also appearing for Nalukoola, cited the 2016 presidential election petition of Amama Mbabazi vs. Yoweri Museveni, stating that Uganda’s courts have a tradition of examining affidavit integrity through inquiry, and not immediate disqualification.

In response, Nambi’s legal team, led by Ahmed Kalule, insisted that the second set of affidavits should be struck from the record. Kalule said that the Supreme court had never provided a definitive interpretation of recanting witnesses, but the Court of Appeal had, and its decisions should guide the High court.

Kalule pointed to rulings involving MPs Betty Nambooze and Brandon Kintu, arguing that affidavits obtained under dubious circumstances must be disregarded. He further cited the case of Moses Attan, whose parliamentary seat was overturned after it was proven that his lawyers tampered with witnesses.

“Witnesses become hostile in court, not in chambers,” Kalule said, challenging the validity of affidavits allegedly written or translated with assistance from Nalukoola’s lawyers.

Justice Namanya is expected to deliver his ruling on Friday, May 9, 2025. His decision will determine whether the affidavits presented by Nalukoola’s side are valid and whether the case can proceed on its merits.

Nambi’s original petition alleges that Nalukoola bribed voters with sums ranging from 5,000 to 10,000 shillings. The Electoral Commission, represented by litigation counsel Eric Sabiti, has denied these claims, maintaining that the election was conducted lawfully.

Nalukoola was declared the winner with 17,939 votes, while Nambi received 9,058. As the legal wrangling continues, the case has emerged as a test of how Uganda’s courts will handle disputes involving witness credibility, election integrity, and legal ethics. Both sides are watching closely as the ruling could set important precedents for future election petitions.