Court dismisses bid for Busiro South election records
The High Court in Entebbe has dismissed an application by former Busiro County South parliamentary candidate Charles Matovu seeking access to election materials and documents held by the Electoral Commission, ruling that his requests lacked sufficient specificity and that he had already received certified copies of Declaration of Results forms.
Court dismisses bid for Busiro South election records
____________________
The High Court in Entebbe has dismissed an application by former Busiro County South parliamentary candidate Charles Matovu seeking access to election materials and documents held by the Electoral Commission (EC).
Justice Jamson Karemani dismissed the application with costs, ruling that Matovu had not specified the documents he sought with sufficient particularity and had already been provided with certified copies of Declaration of Results (DR) forms.
The ruling was delivered on September 25, 2026, in Miscellaneous Application No. 0068 of 2026, arising from Election Petition No. 0001 of 2026 at Entebbe.
Matovu had asked the court to order the EC to produce several documents, including material packaging lists, official report books, tamper-proof Declaration of Results forms, accountability of ballot paper forms, Presidential Election Declaration of Results forms for Busiro County South, official report book DR forms and scanner reports.
He also sought certified DR forms for 102 polling stations in Nkumba, Kisubi and Kitala wards, as well as certified DR forms for 58 specifically named polling stations.
Matovu, who contested for the directly elected Member of Parliament seat for Busiro County South in the January 15, 2026 election, said he obtained 30,487 votes and came second to Kenan Opio, who was declared the winner with 36,497 votes.
He said the difference was 6,007 votes.
Matovu subsequently filed an election petition challenging the election on grounds of alleged non-compliance with electoral laws, claiming that the non-compliance substantially affected the election.
According to the court record, Matovu alleged that the certified copies of DR forms attached to his petition and issued by the EC were substantially different from the original DR forms handed to his agents at polling stations.
The EC opposed the application, describing it as incompetent, a fishing expedition and an abuse of court process.
The commission, through Wakiso returning officer Tolbert Musinguzi, said Matovu had polling agents who received copies of the DR forms and that none of them had raised written complaints about the forms signed at the polling stations.
The EC also argued that electoral materials were required by law to remain in its custody until the disposal of election disputes.
Justice Karemani said discovery of documents is a process through which a party may obtain relevant information from an adversary to assist in preparing and presenting their case.
He said an applicant seeking discovery must demonstrate, among other things, that the documents are relevant and material, are not privileged or protected by law, are in the possession or control of the respondent and that attempts had been made to obtain them voluntarily.
The judge said that in an election petition, an applicant must also show that they know what happened or did not happen to constitute the grounds of the petition, that information proving it exists, that the information is in the respondent’s custody, that attempts to obtain it have failed and that what is sought can be produced in the circumstances.
On the first seven categories of documents sought by Matovu, Justice Karemani found that the request did not indicate whether the documents were required for the entire constituency, particular wards or specific polling stations.
He said the lack of specificity made it difficult to identify what documents were required and what the EC was expected to produce.
The judge also rejected Matovu’s request for certified DR forms from 102 polling stations in Nkumba, Kisubi and Kitala wards, saying the polling stations had not been specifically identified in the application.
He said Matovu later listed the polling stations in his affidavit in rejoinder, but the new information could not be relied on because a rejoinder is intended to respond to matters raised in an affidavit in reply and is not meant to introduce new evidence.
Regarding the 58 polling stations that Matovu specifically identified, the judge noted that the applicant had already received certified DR forms and had attached some of them to his election petition.
He said Matovu had not clearly stated which documents he had requested, what had been provided and what remained outstanding.
The judge further held that election materials were not privileged or protected by law, but noted that the EC was the custodian of the official electoral materials.
He, however, observed that under Section 69(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, copies of DR forms are distributed to different parties, including candidates’ agents, and that the copy given to a candidate’s agent is a replica of the form retained by the EC.
Justice Karemani said Matovu had therefore been a custodian of copies of the DR forms through his agents.
The judge also considered the timing of the application.
He noted that Matovu’s requests for some documents were made in March 2026, while the application for discovery was filed on September 13, 2026, five months later and on the eve of the scheduled hearing of the election petition.
The judge said election petitions are urgent and parties are required to act in time to facilitate their disposal.
He found that the documents sought in the earlier requests had not been specified with sufficient particularity and that it was not clear whether the documents subsequently sought in the court application were the same as those earlier requested from the EC.
Justice Karemani ruled that the application lacked merit and dismissed it with costs.