Mukono LC5 petition: Returning officer grilled over missing results, tallying errors
The case stems from the disputed declaration at the Mukono district tally centre, where Amongin initially announced Muyanja as the winner before later declaring Lukooya the winner following a review of the tally.
Mukono LC5 election petition: A photo collage of National Unity Platform (NUP) candidate Johnson Muyanja Ssenyonga (L) and National Resistance Movement (NRM) candidate Francis Lukooya Mukoome (R) attending court. (Credit: Eric Yiga)
________________
The High Court in Mukono has heard evidence raising questions over the tallying and declaration of results in the January 2026 Mukono district LC5 chairperson election, in which National Unity Platform (NUP) candidate Johnson Muyanja Ssenyonga is challenging the victory of National Resistance Movement (NRM) candidate Francis Lukooya Mukoome.
The evidence emerged during the continued hearing of the election petition before Justice Philip Mwaka, where Electoral Commission returning officer Emily Amongin faced sustained cross-examination over discrepancies in declaration of results forms, missing polling-station returns and the circumstances surrounding the reversal of the initial election declaration.
The case stems from the disputed declaration at the Mukono district tally centre, where Amongin initially announced Muyanja as the winner before later declaring Lukooya the winner following a review of the tally. Contemporary reports confirm the two declarations and the revised figures.
According to the initial declaration, Muyanja had obtained 51,686 votes, against Lukooya's 50,254, while independent candidate Lauben Ssenyonjo had 2,995 votes.
The subsequent tally put Lukooya in the lead with 52,523 votes, followed by Muyanja with 52,105 and Ssenyonjo with 3,095 votes. Lukooya's resulting margin was 418 votes.
Returning officer grilled over tally
During cross-examination, Amongin, who told court that she had served as a returning officer for about six years, explained the procedures used to tally results returned from polling stations.
She said declaration of results forms could be rejected where the figures entered on them did not correspond with other relevant election documents.
However, Muyanja's lawyers took her through a number of disputed declaration forms, seeking explanations for what they described as inconsistencies in the results and the manner in which some forms were handled.
At Kiwafu Tea Estate polling station, lawyers drew attention to a comment on the declaration form alleging that ballot papers had been taken by armed personnel.
Despite the comment, Amongin included the station's results in the tally.
She told court that she had not personally been at the polling station but said the election materials from the station were available to the Electoral Commission.
Lawyers also pointed out that some polling agents had not signed the declaration form.
Another disputed document came from Namumpa polling station, where a handwritten comment on the reverse side of the form alleged that some ballot papers had been ticked by armed personnel.
Amongin confirmed that she had tallied 100 votes for Lukooya from the station but acknowledged that she had not read the comment on the reverse side before incorporating the results into the tally.
Justice Mwaka intervened during the exchange, observing that Amongin could not be expected to agree with a statement she had not personally written.
1,942 voters in stations whose results were missing
One of the significant issues raised during the proceedings was the absence of results from four polling stations.
Court heard that although Mukono District had 960 polling stations, the certified tally records did not contain results from Madujju Mosque, Mpunge Primary School in Busooke-Kikeera, Mpunge NAK-Z and Buwujja Faith Nursery School.
The four stations had a combined 1,942 registered voters.
The figures presented to court showed that Madujju Mosque had 278 registered voters, Mpunge Primary School 665, Mpunge NAK-Z 618 and Buwujja Faith Nursery School 381.
Amongin confirmed that voting had taken place at the four stations but said the Electoral Commission had not received the results.
She further acknowledged that there had been reports of violence in some of the affected areas.
During re-examination by Electoral Commission lawyer Hamidu Logoloobi, Amongin explained that where results were not received, the relevant sub-county supervisor reported the matter and the affected polling stations were excluded from the final tally.
She maintained that after tallying all available returns, Lukooya had obtained the highest number of votes.
Muyanja's lawyers, however, questioned why Amongin's affidavit did not specifically document the alleged violence at the affected polling stations or attach a police report or police reference number.
Amongin confirmed that no police reference number concerning the alleged violence had been included in her affidavit.
Presiding officers admit arithmetic discrepancies
The court also heard from presiding officers who were questioned about discrepancies in figures entered on declaration of results forms.
Yulian Nalwanga, a presiding officer at Nasuuti UCC J-T polling station, was asked to explain a declaration form showing Lukooya with 95 votes, Muyanja with no votes and Reuben Ssenyonjo with 95 votes, despite the same form indicating that only 95 valid votes had been cast.
Nalwanga could not immediately explain the figures and acknowledged that an error could have occurred during tallying.
She further told court that she did not personally enter all the figures despite having participated in the tallying and signing of the form.
She acknowledged that presiding officers were expected to fill in the declaration forms themselves.
Another presiding officer, Godfrey Nsamba, who supervised voting at Kisoga Central polling station, also admitted to an arithmetic discrepancy.
The declaration form indicated that 209 female and 160 male voters had participated, giving a total of 369 voters.
However, the votes recorded against the candidates added up to 389, comprising 355 votes for Lukooya, 30 for Muyanja, two for Ssenyonjo and two invalid votes.
Nsamba acknowledged that there must have been an error in the tally.
He told court that such mistakes could be corrected where permitted, explaining that figures could sometimes be entered or added incorrectly.
Dispute over Basiima Kikooza results
At Basiima Kikooza Catholic Church polling station, presiding officer Luke Byamukama was questioned about alterations appearing on the declaration of results form.
The form showed 397 voters, comprising 226 female and 171 male voters, and 253 unused ballot papers.
Lawyers presented different copies of the declaration form to the witness.
One copy showed Lukooya with 14 votes, while another certified copy showed 300 votes written over the earlier figure.
Byamukama denied personally imposing the disputed figures but told court that he had initially recorded the actual votes before, amid pressure, ending up with different figures.
During re-examination, however, he maintained that voting at the station had proceeded smoothly and that he had initially entered the correct figures consciously.
The conflicting evidence on the forms formed part of the petitioner's wider argument that some election results were altered after voting.
Court expunges witness affidavit
Justice Mwaka also ordered the removal from the court record of the affidavit of Peter Ssekiwanda after he failed to appear for cross-examination.
The judge granted the petitioner's request to expunge the affidavit after the opposing lawyers argued that they had been denied an opportunity to test the evidence through cross-examination.
The decision came as the evidentiary phase of the petition drew to a close.
At the conclusion of witness examination, lawyer Humphrey Ategeka, representing Lukooya, told court that the respondents would not cross-examine the petitioner's remaining witnesses.
Muyanja's lawyers similarly indicated that they did not intend to cross-examine witnesses presented by Lukooya.
Justice Mwaka subsequently adjourned the matter, with the parties expected to proceed to final submissions and a rejoinder.
Petitioner's case
Muyanja's lawyers have asked the court to annul Lukooya's election, arguing that the irregularities alleged in the petition affected the credibility of the final result.
Their case centres on the two declarations, alleged discrepancies in polling-station results, missing returns, disputed declaration forms and alleged alterations to election documents.
Earlier in the proceedings, the petitioner also sought to rely on audio and video recordings made during the declaration of results. However, Justice Mwaka rejected the recordings after finding that the chain of custody necessary to authenticate the electronic evidence had not been sufficiently established.
The petitioner had also sought to introduce supplementary material relating to forensic examination of 22 declaration-of-results forms, but the court rejected the supplementary affidavit at that stage after the respondents objected to its late introduction.
Lukooya and EC reject allegations
Lukooya's lawyers have rejected the petitioner's allegations and maintained that their client was properly declared after the Electoral Commission completed the tallying process.
The Electoral Commission has similarly defended the final declaration, arguing that Lukooya obtained the highest number of votes from the returns accepted for the final tally.
Lukooya was subsequently gazetted as Mukono district chairperson on April 14, 2026.
The respondents' position is that the final tally, rather than the earlier announcement, represents the official election result.
The dispute therefore leaves the court to determine whether the alleged irregularities were proved and, if so, whether they were sufficient to affect the validity of the election.
Case heads to final submissions
With the witnesses having completed their evidence, the petition is now moving towards its final stage.
Lukooya's lawyer, Kenneth Nsubuga Ssabagayu, indicated that the remaining proceedings would be completed on September 30, 2026, when the parties are expected to make their legal submissions.
The court will ultimately determine whether the final declaration of Lukooya as Mukono district LC5 chairperson complied with the law and whether the alleged discrepancies, missing results and other irregularities materially affected the election.
For now, the allegations raised by Muyanja remain contested, and the High Court has not made a final determination on the merits of the petition.