News
Mukono court clears way for hearing of Kibuule’s election petition
Among the allegations are claims of voter bribery, undue influence, defacement of campaign posters, and alleged defamatory statements made against Kibuule during campaign meetings.
Hon. Abdallah Kiwanuka with his lawyers at the Mukono High Court. (Credit: Eric Yiga)
By: Eric Yiga, Journalist @New Vision
_____________
The High Court in Mukono has cleared the hearing of an election petition filed by former State Minister for Water Ronald Kibuule challenging the victory of Mukono County North Member of Parliament Abdallah Kiwanuka.
In a ruling delivered on Wednesday, September 23, Justice Godfrey Himbaza struck out a separate affidavit filed by Kiwanuka in response to affidavits sworn by witnesses supporting Kibuule’s petition. The judge held that there was no legal provision under the election petition rules permitting the respondent to file such an affidavit.
However, the court dismissed an attempt by Kibuule’s lawyers to invalidate Kiwanuka’s entire answer to the petition on the grounds of defects in the supporting affidavit. Justice Himbaza ordered that the answer remains valid, allowing the case to proceed to a substantive hearing.
The ruling followed preliminary objections raised by Kibuule’s legal team when the petition came up for hearing on September 21. Led by Frank Kanduho and Ivan Bwowe, the lawyers argued that the affidavit supporting Kiwanuka’s answer failed to comply with Rule 8(3) of the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rules. They contended that the affidavit largely responded to Kibuule’s own affidavit instead of setting out the facts upon which Kiwanuka relied in defending his election.
Kibuule’s lawyers asked the court to strike out the affidavit, arguing that its removal would leave Kiwanuka without a competent answer to the petition. They also challenged a second affidavit sworn by Kiwanuka in reply to affidavits filed by the petitioner’s witnesses, including Sadiq Ssenyonjo Wabbi, Musasizi Hassan, Tumwesigye Rajab, Arafat Matovu and Tebuseeke Mulushid. The lawyers maintained that while the rules provide for an affidavit supporting a respondent’s answer, they do not authorise a separate affidavit responding to the petitioner’s witnesses.
Kiwanuka, through his lawyer Katumba Chrisostom, opposed the objections. He submitted that the election petition rules do not prescribe a rigid format for an affidavit supporting an answer. What mattered, he argued, was that the respondent admit or rebut the allegations in the petition, and that Kiwanuka had substantially done so. On the second affidavit, counsel explained that some supporting affidavits for the petition had allegedly not been served on Kiwanuka and only came to the defence’s attention after appearing on the Electronic Court Case Management Information System. In the alternative, he asked the court to allow Kiwanuka to file witness statements or give oral evidence if the affidavits were found wanting.
Justice Himbaza agreed that Kiwanuka had erred by framing his main affidavit as a reply to Kibuule’s affidavit rather than setting out independent facts supporting his answer. The judge, however, held that this error did not invalidate the entire answer. Relying on previous decisions on defective affidavits and applying the principle of severance, he ordered that defective portions be expunged while preserving those containing relevant evidence. Specifically, paragraphs nine and 15 of Kiwanuka’s affidavit were retained as containing facts supporting the answer, while the remaining paragraphs were struck out.
The court granted Kiwanuka leave to give oral testimony on the contents of the expunged paragraphs or any other facts supporting his defence. On the second objection, Justice Himbaza sided with the petitioner and struck out the affidavit filed in reply to the witnesses’ affidavits, ruling that no legal provision authorised such a filing. He noted that Kiwanuka would have the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses during the hearing of the petition.
Kibuule filed the petition challenging the January 15, 2026, parliamentary election in Mukono County North, in which the Electoral Commission declared Kiwanuka the winner on January 17. The petition seeks a declaration that the election was not conducted in accordance with electoral laws, the cancellation of Kiwanuka’s election, and an order for a fresh poll.
Among the allegations are claims of voter bribery, undue influence, defacement of campaign posters, and alleged defamatory statements made against Kibuule during campaign meetings. The petition further alleges that some polling stations were located at places that had neither been created nor gazetted by the Electoral Commission, resulting in the disenfranchisement of eligible voters. Other claims include the alleged falsification of results at certain polling stations and the premature closure of some stations before the statutory closing time. These remain unproven allegations that will be tested during the hearing on the merits.
Justice Himbaza directed that the petition now proceed to a full hearing. He made no order as to costs. The ruling is dated September 23, 2026.
The court granted Kiwanuka leave to give oral testimony on the contents of the expunged paragraphs or any other facts supporting his defence. On the second objection, Justice Himbaza sided with the petitioner and struck out the affidavit filed in reply to the witnesses’ affidavits, ruling that no legal provision authorised such a filing. He noted that Kiwanuka would have the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses during the hearing of the petition.
Kibuule filed the petition challenging the January 15, 2026, parliamentary election in Mukono County North, in which the Electoral Commission declared Kiwanuka the winner on January 17. The petition seeks a declaration that the election was not conducted in accordance with electoral laws, the cancellation of Kiwanuka’s election, and an order for a fresh poll.
Among the allegations are claims of voter bribery, undue influence, defacement of campaign posters, and alleged defamatory statements made against Kibuule during campaign meetings. The petition further alleges that some polling stations were located at places that had neither been created nor gazetted by the Electoral Commission, resulting in the disenfranchisement of eligible voters. Other claims include the alleged falsification of results at certain polling stations and the premature closure of some stations before the statutory closing time. These remain unproven allegations that will be tested during the hearing on the merits.
Justice Himbaza directed that the petition now proceed to a full hearing. He made no order as to costs. The ruling is dated September 23, 2026.