Mukono High Court: Kibuule Kiwanuka Ruling on Affidavits

• The Mukono High Court is ruling on a preliminary objection concerning affidavits filed by Mukono North MP Abdallah Kiwanuka in an election petition.
• Former minister Ronald Kibuule's lawyers argue Kiwanuka's affidavits do not comply with Rule 8 of the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rules Uganda.
• Kiwanuka's legal team contends the law does not prescribe a specific format and that petitions should not be defeated by formal objections.
• Justice Godfrey Himbaza's decision will determine the validity of Kiwanuka's defence and the progression of the Mukono North MP election validity challenge.
• The ruling will provide crucial clarity on the strict procedural requirements for filing affidavits in Ugandan parliamentary election petitions.

This ruling will provide crucial clarity on the strict procedural requirements for filing affidavits in Ugandan parliamentary election petitions, particularly concerning compliance with rules like Rule 8.

The Mukono High Court is poised to deliver a crucial decision today regarding a preliminary objection lodged by legal representatives for former minister Ronald Kibuule. This objection targets the affidavits submitted by Mukono North Member of Parliament Abdallah Kiwanuka, who is currently defending his election victory. Kibuule, the petitioner in this case, is challenging Kiwanuka's election to the Mukono North parliamentary seat, alleging various electoral irregularities and malpractice, and is also seeking a recount of the votes cast.

The core of Kibuule's objection centers on whether Kiwanuka's response and the accompanying affidavits meet the stringent requirements stipulated for parliamentary election petitions under Uganda election law. Kibuule's legal team is advocating for these disputed filings to be struck out from the court record. Should the court grant this request, it could significantly impact the trajectory of Kiwanuka's defence in the ongoing challenge to the Mukono North MP election validity.

During the proceedings before Justice Godfrey Himbaza, the legal teams presented their contrasting arguments. Frank Kandiho, representing Ronald Kibuule, asserted that the contested affidavit failed to meet the necessary criteria for admission by the court. Kandiho specifically referenced Rule 8 of the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rules Uganda, which mandates that a respondent opposing a petition must file an answer supported by an affidavit detailing the facts relied upon for their defence. Kandiho contended that Kiwanuka's submissions primarily served as a rebuttal to Kibuule's supporting affidavit rather than independently establishing facts pertinent to Kiwanuka's own case. Furthermore, Kandiho challenged the introduction of an additional affidavit by Kiwanuka, arguing that the election petition rules did not permit its filing in the manner it was presented. He urged the court to strike out the documents, award costs to Kibuule, and allow the petition to proceed as if unopposed.

Conversely, Chrysostom Katumba, counsel for Abdallah Kiwanuka, vigorously opposed the preliminary objection, requesting Justice Himbaza to retain the affidavits on the court record. Katumba argued that the law does not prescribe a specific format for a respondent's answer to an election petition. Citing Rule 26 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, he maintained that an election petition should not be dismissed due to a mere formal objection. Kiwanuka himself characterized the objection as a tactic to delay the substantive hearing of the petition, emphasizing that the court's focus should remain on the core issues of the election dispute rather than procedural technicalities. The Mukono High Court Kibuule Kiwanuka ruling will therefore provide crucial clarity on these conflicting interpretations of procedural compliance.

Justice Godfrey Himbaza's decision, expected today, will be pivotal in determining the future course of the challenge against Abdallah Kiwanuka's election. The ruling will specifically address whether the objections raised by Ronald Kibuule's legal team compromise the validity of Kiwanuka's defence and how the election petition will subsequently advance. This decision holds significant weight for the strict procedural requirements for filing affidavits in Ugandan parliamentary election petitions. While the court has yet to deliberate on the substantive allegations of electoral malpractice and irregularities brought forth by Kibuule, the outcome of this preliminary matter could significantly shape the evidence considered in that eventual determination.

This ruling will provide crucial clarity on the strict procedural requirements for filing affidavits in Ugandan parliamentary election petitions, particularly concerning compliance with rules like Rule 8. Lawyers handling election disputes must meticulously ensure all filings meet these standards to prevent key evidence from being struck out and potentially weakening their client's case.

The Mukono High Court Circuit is concurrently handling other election-related disputes, underscoring the active landscape of post-election legal challenges in Uganda. In a separate case, National Resistance Movement candidate Arthur Kiiza has filed an election petition contesting the victory of National Unity Platform's Bbaale County MP Charles Tebandeke. Kiiza alleges that Tebandeke engaged in sectarian remarks during his campaign. During cross-examination in this case, Tebandeke appeared before the court.

Kiiza informed the court that his objective was to hold Tebandeke accountable, thereby encouraging elected leaders to prioritize constituency issues over attacking political adversaries. Tebandeke, however, refuted these allegations, asserting that Kiiza was misrepresenting his campaign statements as tribalistic. Kiiza specifically accused Tebandeke of referring to him as "Goliath" and claiming that he would seize land and evict residents if elected. Tebandeke clarified that his "Goliath" reference was directed at broader societal challenges, such as poverty, land grabbing, and unemployment, rather than being a personal attack on Kiiza.

Source: Original reporting via Ugandan media