KAMPALA, Uganda — Following the High Court’s decision to nullify the Kawempe North parliamentary by-election due to significant electoral irregularities, Elias Luyimbazi Nalukoola has formally initiated an appeal.
The High Court, presided over by Justice Bernard Namanya, concluded that the Electoral Commission (EC) failed to properly account for results from 14 polling stations encompassing 16,640 registered voters.
This omission, according to the court, disenfranchised a considerable number of voters, including the petitioner, Faridah Nambi Kigongo.
Furthermore, Justice Namanya’s judgment stated that Nalukoola personally engaged in campaigning activities on election day at Mbogo Primary School Playground and the Kazo Angola LCI Office, which constitutes a violation of the Parliamentary Elections Act.
Consequently, the court mandated a new election in Kawempe North, with each involved party responsible for their respective legal expenses.
However, Nalukoola, through his legal representatives led by George Musisi, has now lodged a notice of appeal against this verdict.
Nalukoola contends that he did not engage in voter bribery and further argues that any irregularities that may have occurred were not of a magnitude sufficient to change the overall election results.
In contrast, the Electoral Commission, which was jointly sued alongside Nalukoola for its role in administering an election deemed non-compliant with legal standards, has expressed its acceptance of the court’s ruling and confirmed its intention not to appeal.
“We appreciate and welcome the decision of the court. We have taken a decision that we will not be appealing against it,” stated Eric Sabiiti, the Commission’s litigation counsel.
Sabiiti explained that while the Commission might have contested the court’s interpretation of “substantiality,” the finding that Nalukoola participated in unlawful campaigning on polling day provided a compelling rationale for not pursuing an appeal.
“I would have appealed on the substantiality issue, but it wouldn’t make sense if I succeed when there is an illegal practice committed by the first respondent,” he added.
