Court orders protection of witnesses in Isingiro West election petition

He also sought orders against alleged interference with witnesses, who had sworn affidavits in support of his election petition. His application further included requests for committal to civil prison, sequestration, attachment of Tumwesigye’s salary, compensation of sh1b and a fine of sh100m.

However, the judge declined to strike out the respondents’ answers and the additional affidavits.

The court found that Tumwesigye’s response had been served outside the five-day period prescribed under Rule 8(4) of the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rules. However, the judge held that the delay did not warrant striking it out because Arinaitwe had received the answer, responded to it, and participated in the proceedings without demonstrating procedural prejudice.

The judge also accepted the Electoral Commission’s explanation that its response, filed on April 16, 2026, could not be served earlier because it had not been endorsed by the Deputy Registrar. The response was endorsed on April 20, and the court found the explanation for the subsequent service reasonable.

On the additional affidavits, the court declined to strike out the 36 affidavits filed by the Electoral Commission and the 91 others attributed to Tumwesigye.

Teko held that the filing of Arinaitwe’s rejoinder did not automatically prevent the respondents from filing additional affidavits before the scheduling conference. He directed that any prejudice arising from the additional evidence be addressed by allowing the petitioner an opportunity to respond.

The judge ordered Arinaitwe to file replies to the additional affidavits by October 22, 2026, limiting them to issues raised in the additional evidence. The respondents were directed to file any rejoinders by October 26. The parties were also ordered to file a joint scheduling memorandum by October 27, which would mark the close of the exchange of affidavits and pleadings.

The Deputy Registrar was directed to issue and serve a hearing notice, fixing the main election petition for hearing from October 28 to 30, 2026.

In his application, Arinaitwe alleged that some of his witnesses had been threatened, harassed, summoned before local tribunals and fined because they had sworn affidavits in support of the election petition.

Justice Teko's ruling referred to affidavits concerning; Sadat Bamukunda, Ronald Kiiza , Annet Kyarisiima , Jackson Byamukama ,Geoffrey Tumwehe and Alfred Baraka.

The judge noted that the fifth respondent had acknowledged writing to Bamukunda requiring her to attend a meeting after being informed that she had taken pleadings in the High Court concerning the election.

According to the ruling, a document exhibited in court summoned Bamukunda to a Local Council 1 cell court to answer complaints concerning statements about the election. The fifth respondent explained that the meeting did not take place after he was called to the police station and instructed not to convene it.

Teko held that the evidence presented a sufficient risk of interference with witnesses to warrant protective orders. However, he declined to make a final finding of contempt against the respondents or impose the requested punitive sanctions at that stage.

The judge said the evidence did not establish, with the required degree of certainty, that the first and second respondents had personally authorised every act complained of. He also noted that the sixth respondent disputed responsibility for the alleged calls, messages and offer of money.

The court consequently declined the claims for sh1b in compensation, a sh100m fine, committal to civil prison, sequestration and attachment of Tumwesigye’s salary.

The costs of the application were ordered to abide by the outcome of the main election petition.