Uganda High Court: Nyanzi Election Records Access Denied

• The High Court in Kampala dismissed Fred Nyanzi Ssentamu's application for original electoral records from 73 polling stations in Kawempe South.
• Justice Faridah Shamilah Bukirwa Ntambi ruled on September 28, 2026, that Nyanzi failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the request.
• Nyanzi did not demonstrate that certified Declaration of Results Forms differed from those allegedly received by his agents, nor did he exhibit his agents' forms.
• The court emphasized that discovery in election petitions requires a strong factual basis and specific evidence of discrepancies, not a general search for evidence.
• Nyanzi sought various documents, including Declaration of Results Forms, Official Report Books, and Scanner Print Out Reports, from the Uganda Electoral Commission and Madina Ntale Nsereko.

The High Court's decision underscores that in the context of an expedited election petition, discovery cannot serve as a general search for evidence unless a robust factual foundation has been established.

The High Court in Kampala recently dismissed an application by Fred Nyanzi Ssentamu, who sought access to original electoral records from 73 polling stations within the Kawempe South Constituency. Justice Faridah Shamilah Bukirwa Ntambi, presiding over the matter, issued the ruling on September 28, 2026, concluding that Mr. Nyanzi had not presented sufficient evidence to justify his request for the documents. The application aimed to compel the Uganda Electoral Commission to produce original Declaration of Results Forms, Official Report Books, Accountability of Ballot Paper Forms, Scanner Print Out Reports, and Deployment Books.

Mr. Nyanzi also sought an order for the second respondent, Madina Ntale Nsereko, to provide her original Declaration of Results Forms for the same polling stations. This discovery application stemmed from Election Petition No. 0009 of 2026, where Mr. Nyanzi alleges that the Kawempe South election results were irregularly manipulated, with votes either added, switched, or interchanged to favor Ms. Nsereko. However, the court found that his claims lacked the necessary evidentiary backing for an order of discovery.

Justice Bukirwa Ntambi clarified that the court was not, at this interlocutory stage, assessing the veracity of Mr. Nyanzi's allegations regarding altered results; rather, the focus was solely on whether adequate evidence existed to warrant the production of original documents for further investigation. Mr. Nyanzi had identified 53 polling stations where he claimed votes were improperly added to Ms. Nsereko's tally and an additional 20 stations where votes were allegedly switched or interchanged. Despite these specific numerical claims, the judge noted a critical omission: Mr. Nyanzi failed to exhibit the Declaration of Results Forms purportedly received by his own polling agents.

This absence meant the court could not prima facie establish any non-conformity between the certified Declaration of Results Forms held by the Electoral Commission and any alternative set, which would have justified an order for their production and inspection. Furthermore, the applicant did not present any evidence demonstrating that the certified forms in the possession of the Uganda Electoral Commission were inaccurate. The High Court emphasized that to move beyond certified copies and demand original documents, an applicant must first lay a sufficient factual basis to question the accuracy of those certified records, a requirement not met in this instance.

The court also rejected Mr. Nyanzi's request for other electoral records, including Official Report Books, Accountability of Ballot Paper Forms, Scanner Print Out Reports, and Deployment Books. Justice Bukirwa Ntambi observed that Mr. Nyanzi had not pinpointed any specific entry, incident, or discrepancy within these particular records that would indicate a different outcome from what was reflected in the certified Declaration of Results Forms. Without such a specific foundation, the judge reasoned that compelling the production and examination of all these documents would amount to merely re-tracing the entire electoral process without a clear objective of establishing additional facts.

The High Court further dismissed the argument that the application should succeed simply because the requested documents *might* potentially reveal evidence supporting Mr. Nyanzi's allegations. The judge underscored that election petitions operate under an expedited procedure, necessitating caution against allowing discovery to become a general search for evidence when the requisite factual basis has not been established. Ultimately, the court concluded that Mr. Nyanzi had not adequately demonstrated the relevance and materiality of the documents he sought.

This ruling by the Uganda High Court provides crucial clarity for practitioners involved in election petitions, particularly concerning the discovery of electoral documents. It firmly establishes that general allegations of irregularities, even when numerically specific, are insufficient to compel the production of original records. Instead, applicants like Fred Nyanzi Ssentamu must present a strong factual basis and specific evidence of discrepancies or non-conformity to justify such requests. The High Court's decision underscores that in the context of an expedited election petition, discovery cannot serve as a general search for evidence unless a robust factual foundation has been established. This means lawyers must ensure their applications for the production of documents, including Declaration of Results Forms, are supported by concrete proof of non-conformity or specific issues with certified records, rather than relying on the hope of uncovering evidence through a broad "fishing expedition."

This ruling clarifies that in Ugandan election petitions, lawyers must present a strong factual basis and specific evidence of discrepancies to compel discovery of original electoral documents, rather than relying on general allegations or a 'fishing expedition' for evidence. Practitioners should ensure their applications for discovery are supported by concrete proof of non-conformity to avoid dismissal.

Source: Original reporting via court documents.