Nalukoola Asks Court to Dismiss Nambi’s Objection in Election Case
Nalukoola Luyimbazi, the Kawempe North Member of Parliament, has asked the High Court in Kampala to dismiss the preliminary point of law raised by his rival, Faridah Nambi, in her election petition. Nambi’s petition alleges voter bribery by Nalukoola. However, the current dispute before the High Court Civil Division centers on affidavits filed by witnesses from both parties.
Nambi claims that three witnesses initially supported her petition, swearing affidavits that Nalukoola bribed them, but were later enticed and coerced into retracting their statements to support Nalukoola. She asked the court to strike the second set of affidavits off the record, calling them illegal.
On Monday, Nalukoola, through his lawyers led by Alex Luganda, told the court presided over by Justice Benard Namanya that Nambi’s claims about tampering with witnesses are unfounded. Luganda argued that the witnesses are not recanting because they either never swore affidavits in the first place or because their affidavits do not support Nambi’s claims.
Luganda defended his client, saying the petitioner wants to condemn them without hearing their side of the story. He noted that not all three affidavits are recanting and that one of the witnesses, Ben Lutale Mukasa, was not even a witness for Nambi.
He also said that the rule invoked by Nambi’s lawyers—Rule 19 of the Advocates’ Professional Conduct—prohibits coercion, enticement, tampering, inducement, and bribery by advocates, but argued that the situation at hand does not amount to such violations. Luganda further told the court that Ugandan law does not expressly address the concept of recanting witnesses and that such matters are better handled through cross-examination.
He cited a Supreme Court decision that emphasized the importance of assessing whether the initial affidavits were properly obtained. The court heard that one of the witnesses, George Mawumbe, testified that he did not swear an affidavit supporting Nambi’s application and that he was not even in Kawempe on voting day.
Nalukoola’s lawyers thus argued that Nambi’s preliminary objection is premature and should be dismissed. They also contended that recanting witnesses are not illegal and that courts should thoroughly scrutinize each allegation instead of striking affidavits off the record. They warned that witnesses might lie to help candidates win cases unjustly.
Another lawyer for Nalukoola, Remmy Bagyenda, said hostile witnesses are common and courts and lawyers must uncover the truth. Samuel Muyizzi Mulindwa, also representing Nalukoola, cited the Amama Mbabazi vs. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni presidential election petition, saying they had studied the issue of inquiry into affidavits deeply. Nalukoola has therefore asked the court to dismiss Nambi’s preliminary point of law, saying it is premature and intended to obstruct justice.
On her part, Nambi, through her lawyers led by Ahmed Kalule, argued that the Supreme Court never addressed the issue of recanting witnesses, nor did it interpret Rule 19 of the Advocates’ Professional Conduct Regulations. Kalule said the Court of Appeal decisions are more relevant in this case because of the doctrine of concurrent jurisdiction, where the Court of Appeal is the final court for election petitions.
Kalule cited the case of MP Betty Nambooze and MP Brandon Kintu, saying those precedents show that the second set of affidavits should be struck out. He said that two affidavits from the same witnesses appearing on record are a fact, and that it is also a fact that Nalukoola’s lawyers helped the witnesses prepare and translate the affidavits.
He added that actions by Nalukoola’s lawyers violated the Court of Appeal precedents, including in the Moses Attan case, where irregular witness handling led to an MP’s removal from Parliament. Kalule emphasized that witnesses only become hostile during cross-examination in open court, not while in lawyers’ chambers. Kalule, therefore, asked the court to strike out the second set of affidavits filed by Nalukoola’s side.
Justice Benard Namanya is expected to deliver his ruling on Friday, May 9, 2025, determining whether Nalukoola’s defense will proceed or be struck out. Last month, Nambi, the runner-up in the Kawempe North parliamentary elections, petitioned the High Court to nullify Nalukoola’s victory, citing voter bribery and other electoral malpractices.
Nambi alleged that Nalukoola bribed voters with cash, including 10,000 shillings to Kyemba Muwanguzi Nathan and 5,000 shillings to Mawumbe George William and Wamukubira Geoffrey. However, the Electoral Commission, through its litigation lawyer Eric Sabiti, denied the allegations, asserting that the election was conducted under the Constitution and electoral laws.
The Electoral Commission declared Nalukoola the winner of the March 13, 2025, elections with 17,939 votes, against Nambi’s 9,058 votes. Dissatisfied, Nambi petitioned the High Court seeking a fresh by-election, claiming the process was marred by irregularities and voter bribery.
