Mukono High Court: Orders Amongin Appearance in LC5 Election Dispute

• The High Court in Mukono has ordered former District Returning Officer Emilly Amongin to appear in a petition challenging Francis Mukoome Lukooya's election as district chairperson.
• Petitioner Johnson Muyanja Ssenyonga alleges electoral irregularities, including altered results and forged signatures, after Amongin initially declared him the winner before changing the declaration.
• Justice Phillip Mwaka rejected forensic evidence on alleged forgeries, stating the court would only consider certified Electoral Commission results.
• Video recordings purportedly showing conflicting declarations by Amongin were also rejected due to insufficient authentication and a lack of established chain of custody.
• The case has been adjourned for further evidence consideration and witness cross-examination, with the petitioner expressing continued commitment.

This ruling by Justice Phillip Mwaka emphasizes the critical need for meticulous authentication and a clear chain of custody to successfully challenge official election results in Uganda.

The High Court in Mukono has issued an order for Emilly Amongin, the former Mukono District Returning Officer, to appear before it. Her appearance is required to address a petition that challenges the declaration of Francis Mukoome Lukooya as the district chairperson. This significant development is part of an ongoing legal battle initiated by Johnson Muyanja Ssenyonga, a former Member of Parliament for Mukono South and a representative of the National Unity Platform (NUP), who disputes Lukooya's victory in the election.

During the recent proceedings, both Muyanja Ssenyonga and Lukooya presented their respective witnesses as the court continued its examination of the evidence related to the contested election. Records indicate that Amongin initially announced Muyanja Ssenyonga as the winner, having secured 51,686 votes, while Lukooya was reported to have obtained 50,254 votes. These figures align with earlier accounts of the disputed election results.

The petitioner, Muyanja Ssenyonga, claims that approximately 30 minutes following the initial declaration of results, supporters of the National Resistance Movement (NRM) protested the outcome and gained entry into the returning officer's premises. Following this incident, Amongin subsequently announced Francis Mukoome Lukooya as the duly elected Mukono District chairperson. This dramatic shift forms the core of the challenge.

John Naleera, legal counsel for Muyanja Ssenyonga, informed the court that the petition is grounded in allegations of widespread electoral irregularities. These include the purported alteration of results from various polling stations and the forgery of signatures attributed to polling officials. The petitioner's legal team attempted to introduce evidence concerning alleged forged signatures and manipulated results from more than 22 polling stations, specifically naming Kisowera SS, Nama UMEA, Nsonga RC, and Mavunikire. They further asserted that police forensic experts had examined and confirmed some of these alleged forgeries.

In a crucial development for the Mukono LC5 election dispute, Justice Phillip Mwaka of the Uganda High Court declined to accept the disputed evidence presented by the petitioner, which included the findings of police forensic experts regarding alleged forgeries. The court ruled that it would instead rely exclusively on certified results provided by the Electoral Commission, underscoring a stringent approach to evidence in electoral petitions.

Furthermore, the petitioners sought to introduce video recordings, arguing that these clips depicted Emilly Amongin making conflicting declarations concerning both Muyanja Ssenyonga and Lukooya. However, Justice Mwaka rejected these recordings as well, citing a lack of sufficient authentication and the failure to establish the required chain of custody. A report on the proceedings highlighted that while journalists had made the recordings, the petitioner could not adequately account for the precise methods of how this electronic evidence was recorded, transferred, and preserved. This ruling by Justice Phillip Mwaka emphasizes the critical need for meticulous authentication and a clear chain of custody to successfully challenge official election results in Uganda.

Lawyers representing Francis Mukoome Lukooya informed the court that they would not engage in the cross-examination of witnesses from either side, asserting that such an action would constitute an unnecessary expenditure of judicial time. Following these submissions, the court adjourned the matter to a later date to allow for further consideration of the remaining evidence and to facilitate the cross-examination of additional witnesses, including Lukooya himself and other individuals involved in the electoral process.

Speaking outside the courtroom after the hearing, Johnson Muyanja Ssenyonga reiterated his unwavering commitment to the case. He also expressed gratitude to the judge for permitting the hearing to proceed despite the objections raised regarding some of the evidence presented. Lukooya and his legal representatives, however, chose not to comment on the proceedings. The case is set to resume as the court continues its examination of the outstanding evidence and hears further testimony.

Lawyers handling electoral petitions in Uganda should note the High Court's stringent requirements for evidence admissibility, particularly concerning forensic reports and electronic evidence. This case underscores the critical need for meticulous authentication and a clear chain of custody to successfully challenge official election results.

Source: Original reporting via Nile Post