News
Court upholds election of Logwee as Napore West MP
In a judgment delivered on November 9, 2026, High Court Judge Amos Kwizera found that Logwee’s rival, Philips Ilukol Lokwang, failed to prove that the election was conducted in breach of electoral laws or marred by illegal practices.
Court upholds election of Logwee as Napore West MP
By: Farooq Kasule, Journalist @New Vision
________________
The High Court in Kitgum has upheld the election of Fidelis Luluk Logwee as the duly elected Member of Parliament (MP) for Napore West in Karenga District.
In a judgment delivered on November 9, 2026, High Court Judge Amos Kwizera found that Logwee’s rival, Philips Ilukol Lokwang, failed to prove that the election was conducted in breach of electoral laws or marred by illegal practices.
Lokwang had alleged failures in biometric and manual voter verification, disenfranchisement of qualified voters, delayed commencement and premature closure of polling, multiple voting, ballot irregularities, bribery, intimidation and violence.
“I find that the petitioner (Lokwang) has failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the 1st Respondent (Logwee) personally committed any illegal practice or electoral offence or that any such offence was committed by another person with his knowledge, consent or approval within the meaning of section 80 (1) (c) of the Parliamentary Elections Act. In the final result, and derived from the foregoing, this petition is dismissed with costs,” Justice Kwizera ruled.
On the allegations of interference with electioneering activities, which is criminalised under section 42 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, the judge ruled that describing some of the alleged perpetrators as Logwee’s relatives, supporters or agents was not enough.
Without evidence of the requisite connection, the judge said their conduct could not be said to have been undertaken with Logwee’s knowledge, consent or approval.
“I find that the petitioner (Lokwang) has failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the 1st Respondent (Logwee) personally committed any illegal practice or electoral offence or that any such offence was committed by another person with his knowledge, consent or approval within the meaning of section 80 (1) (c) of the Parliamentary Elections Act. In the final result, and derived from the foregoing, this petition is dismissed with costs,” Justice Kwizera ruled.
On the allegations of interference with electioneering activities, which is criminalised under section 42 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, the judge ruled that describing some of the alleged perpetrators as Logwee’s relatives, supporters or agents was not enough.
Without evidence of the requisite connection, the judge said their conduct could not be said to have been undertaken with Logwee’s knowledge, consent or approval.
“Equally, the allegations of personal participation by the 1st Respondent (Logwee) have not been established by sufficiently cogent and credible evidence,” Justice Kwizera noted.
The judge also found that the claim that voters were chased away and denied the chance to vote was not sufficiently established.
On voter bribery, Justice Kwizera held that the fact that some of those, who distributed money were described as relatives or supporters of Logwee was not without further evidence, sufficient to establish the statutory connection.
“I, therefore, find that these allegations have not been proved against the 1st Respondent (Logwee),” the judge ruled.
The judge also found that the claim that voters were chased away and denied the chance to vote was not sufficiently established.
On voter bribery, Justice Kwizera held that the fact that some of those, who distributed money were described as relatives or supporters of Logwee was not without further evidence, sufficient to establish the statutory connection.
“I, therefore, find that these allegations have not been proved against the 1st Respondent (Logwee),” the judge ruled.