Court rejects bid to have judge step down from Aruu election petition
The petitioner accused the judge of altering the joint scheduling memorandum, interfering with his lawyers during cross-examination, speaking harshly to him, improperly admitting the testimony of the second respondent through Zoom and being linked to alleged bribery.
The lawyers cross-examined the second respondent, the Returning Officer, and the third respondent, Hon. Christopher Komakech (Pictured).
The High Court in Patong has dismissed an application seeking the recusal of Justice Fatuma Nanziri Bwanika from hearing and determining an election petition arising from the January 2026 Aruu County parliamentary elections.
The application was filed by the petitioner against the Electoral Commission, the Returning Officer for Aruu County Constituency and Hon. Komakech Christopher, the second and third respondents, respectively.
The petitioner sought the recusal of Justice Nanziri on allegations of bias, procedural irregularities and bribery.
The application was filed through a letter after the conclusion of the hearing of Election Petition No. 001 of 2026.
The petitioner accused the judge of altering the joint scheduling memorandum, interfering with his lawyers during cross-examination, speaking harshly to him, improperly admitting the testimony of the second respondent through Zoom and being linked to alleged bribery.
The petitioner had challenged the election held on January 15, 2026 for Aruu County Constituency in Pader district.
Justice Nanziri said the application was governed by the Constitutional (Recusal of Judicial Officers) (Practice) Directions, 2019, which allow a judicial officer to recuse themselves where their impartiality may reasonably be questioned.
She said a party seeking recusal has the burden of providing credible evidence to establish circumstances showing actual, imputed or apparent bias.
The hearing was conducted in open court and concluded on September 21, 2026, with the petitioner represented by lawyers Paul Julius Layoo and Oscar Kizza.
The lawyers cross-examined the second respondent, the Returning Officer, and the third respondent, Hon. Christopher Komakech.
Justice Nanziri said the petitioner and his lawyers did not raise any concerns about the conduct of the proceedings during the scheduling conference or hearing.
On the allegation that the court altered the joint scheduling memorandum, the judge said the record showed that the issue was discussed in the presence of counsel for all parties.
She said the parties agreed to include an additional issue concerning whether alleged non-compliance with electoral laws affected the election results in a substantial manner.
The revised scheduling memorandum was subsequently signed by all counsel and filed on court record.
The judge said the court had power under the Civil Procedure Rules to frame or amend issues necessary for determining matters in dispute.
On alleged interference with the petitioner’s lawyers during cross-examination, Justice Nanziri said cross-examination in election petitions was subject to the control and direction of court.
The judge also rejected the allegation that she had spoken harshly to the petitioner.
She said the petitioner, who is an advocate of the High Court, had been seated at the bar without being fully robed when the hearing commenced
The court directed him to leave the bar unless he intended to appear as counsel for himself, in which case he was required to comply with courtroom requirements.
On the use of Zoom to hear the second respondent, the judge said the parties had agreed to the virtual hearing after the Returning Officer was unable to attend physically because of a medical emergency involving his daughter.
Justice Nanziri said the Judicature (Electronic Filing, Service and Virtual Proceedings) Rules, 2025 provide for virtual proceedings and do not make medical evidence or loudspeakers in court preconditions for a virtual appearance.
The judge also rejected the bribery allegation, saying the material before court did not establish a credible evidential connection between statements allegedly made by a party to the case and the judge.
Justice Nanziri ruled that none of the grounds, individually or cumulatively, established actual or apparent bias.
“Accordingly, the application for recusal is dismissed. I decline to recuse myself,” she ruled.
She said she would proceed to consider the written submissions of the parties and deliver judgment on November 5, 2026, as scheduled.