The High Court in Mukono has admitted a mobile money statement and three campaign rally videos presented by former Mukono County North MP Ronald Kibuule in his election petition against his successor, Abdallah Kiwanuka, dismissing objections by the respondent’s lawyers who questioned the authenticity, integrity and admissibility of the electronic evidence.
In a ruling delivered on November 9, 2026, Justice Godfrey Himbaza overruled all objections raised by Kiwanuka’s legal team and allowed the evidence to be formally presented as exhibits in the ongoing election petition.
The admitted evidence includes an Airtel Money statement relating to a Shs100,000 transaction allegedly sent by Kiwanuka to Sadiq Wabbi Ssenyonjo on December 19, 2025, as well as videos showing campaign rallies held at Ddundu, Wanjeyo and Namawojjolo during the 2026 parliamentary election campaigns.
Kibuule, who is challenging the outcome of the January 15, 2026 parliamentary election for Mukono County North, alleges that Kiwanuka engaged in electoral malpractice, including bribery, in violation of Section 78 of the Parliamentary Elections Act.
According to the petition, Kiwanuka allegedly sent Shs100,000 to Wabbi Ssenyonjo at 5:01pm on December 19, 2025, using telephone number 0702404839, registered in his personal names, to Wabbi’s number 0700104804, with an alleged request that he refrain from voting for Kibuule.
The transaction, identified by Airtel Money transaction ID 137073298251, became one of the contested pieces of evidence after Kibuule sought permission to formally tender the mobile money statement in court as an exhibit.
However, Kiwanuka’s lawyers, led by Chrisestom Katumba and assisted by Asuman Basaalirwa, Male Mubarack and Derrick Lubega, objected to its admission, arguing that the document had not been attached to Wabbi’s affidavit and lacked sufficient proof of originality and authenticity.
They further argued that Wabbi was merely the recipient of the statement and not its author, making him incompetent to explain certain technical details, including transaction identification numbers and other information contained in the document.
The lawyers also questioned the statement’s completeness, noting that although it indicated coverage up to February 2026, the last transaction reflected was December 22, 2025.
They argued that the statement contained third-party personal information and that an official from Airtel, as the originating telecommunications company, would be better placed to authenticate its contents.
In response, Kibuule’s lawyers, Frank Kanduho and Ivan Bwowe, argued that the transaction had already been pleaded in the petition and that Kiwanuka had acknowledged sending the money in his response to the allegations.
They pointed to paragraph 6(c) of Kiwanuka’s answer to the petition, in which he admitted sending the Shs100,000 but maintained that the money was intended to facilitate repairs to a tent used by him and National Unity Platform members for mobilisation meetings.
According to Kiwanuka’s explanation, the tent had been in Wabbi’s custody and management for the previous four years.
In his assessment, Justice Himbaza observed that the central dispute was not whether the money had been transferred but rather the purpose for which it was sent.
“The 2nd respondent does not deny sending money to the said Saddick Wabbi Ssenyonjo on 19th December 2025,” the judge observed, adding that the mobile money statement confirmed the transaction at 5:01pm on the same date.
The judge further held that the fact that Wabbi was the addressee of the statement did not prevent him from presenting it in court, noting that the respondents could challenge its contents through cross-examination or by seeking permission to call an Airtel official to testify.
Justice Himbaza also rejected the argument that the statement was incomplete, explaining that Kibuule did not need to produce an entire mobile money statement covering all the months indicated where the specific transaction in dispute was already reflected.
He noted that the statement bore Airtel’s stamp and that there was no evidence before court demonstrating that it had been altered.
The judge also dismissed concerns about third-party personal data, observing that the disclaimer on the statement did not prohibit its use in court proceedings where it was obtained for the purpose of proving the disputed transaction.
He said there was no evidence of data infringement and that the Data Protection and Privacy Act provided safeguards and remedies for anyone whose personal information may have been improperly handled.
Campaign videos admitted
The second major dispute concerned three videos showing campaign rallies at Ddundu, Wanjeyo and Namawojjolo, which Kibuule wanted admitted alongside their transcriptions and English translations.
Kiwanuka’s lawyers argued that the videos had not been securely sealed by a commissioner for oaths as required under the law and that their authenticity had not been sufficiently established.
They also questioned the source of the recordings, arguing that some appeared to have been downloaded from TikTok and were not original recordings.
The defence further raised concerns about possible manipulation through artificial intelligence and other digital technologies, arguing that Kibuule had not demonstrated how the videos were obtained, stored and preserved to guarantee their integrity.
Particular attention was drawn to the Wanjeyo rally video, which was recorded by one of Kibuule’s witnesses, Tebuseeke Mulushid, on December 12, 2025.
Mulushid had testified that his phone was later stolen after he shared the recording with Kibuule but that he subsequently came across the same video on TikTok and downloaded it.
The respondent’s lawyers questioned how the court could establish the integrity of a recording whose original device had been lost and whose subsequent handling had not been fully demonstrated.
They also relied on an earlier ruling by the same court in the election petition filed by Daisy Nabatanzi Ssonko against Betty Nambooze Bakireke, in which electronic video evidence was rejected because the petitioner had not adequately established its authenticity and integrity.
However, Kibuule’s lawyers argued that their case was different because the petitioner and his witnesses had provided a clear account of the circumstances surrounding the recordings.
They pointed to evidence from witnesses who attended the respective rallies and confirmed the events and statements captured in the videos.
For the Ddundu rally, the petitioner relied on the affidavit of Tumwesigye Rajab, while Arafat Matovu provided evidence relating to the Namawojjolo rally. Mulushid, on the other hand, testified about recording the Wanjeyo rally.
The lawyers also argued that the videos matched the descriptions and events contained in the witnesses’ affidavits and that the absence of original recordings did not automatically render electronic evidence inadmissible.
In determining the dispute, Justice Himbaza relied on Section 7(2) of the Electronic Transactions Act, which requires a person seeking to introduce electronic records in legal proceedings to establish their authenticity through evidence capable of demonstrating that the records are what they are claimed to be.
The judge noted that Kibuule had mentioned the videos in his petition and explained in his supporting affidavit that he had received information from his supporters about alleged electoral offences and subsequently accessed some of the recordings through his TikTok account, @honkibuu/eronald.
He further observed that three witnesses had provided evidence connecting them to the respective rallies, thereby establishing the background against which the recordings were presented.
Justice Himbaza distinguished the case from the earlier Nabatanzi petition, observing that in that matter, the petitioner had not adequately explained how the videos were obtained or how their authenticity and integrity were maintained.
He also referred to the Supreme Court decision in Busonya Jamada and Others v Daudi Giruli, which addressed the requirements for commissioning and sealing annexures to affidavits.
The judge acknowledged that Rules 8 and 9 of the Commissioner for Oaths Rules require exhibits attached to affidavits to be securely sealed and marked for identification.
However, he found that the transcriptions and translations accompanying Kibuule’s videos had been commissioned and sealed by Commissioner for Oaths Barnabas Dyadi Kamya.
He also noted that the videos played in court corresponded with the contents of the transcriptions and translations attached to the petition.
The court further considered the decision in Mukiibi Henry and Others v Hajji Abdul Kiyimba and Others, in which Justice Douglas Karekona Singiza accepted video recordings downloaded from BBS Telefayina and Sky News YouTube channels after the person presenting them explained how they had been accessed, stored and preserved.
Justice Himbaza found that Kibuule and his witnesses had provided sufficient background to the three recordings to satisfy the legal requirements for their admission.
He emphasised that electronic evidence does not necessarily have to be presented in its original form to be admissible under Section 7(1)(c) of the Electronic Transactions Act.
The judge, however, made an important distinction between admitting evidence and determining its ultimate credibility.
He explained that although the videos had met the threshold for admission, their evidential weight would be assessed during the final determination of the petition.
Under Section 7(4) of the Electronic Transactions Act, courts are required to consider the reliability of how electronic records were generated, stored or communicated, how their authenticity was maintained, and how their originators were identified.
Justice Himbaza said Kiwanuka and the Electoral Commission retained the right to challenge the evidence through cross-examination of Kibuule and his witnesses.
If the respondents successfully discredit the recordings, the court could disregard them or attach less evidential weight to them when writing its final judgment.
In the final orders, the court admitted the Airtel mobile money statement as Petitioner’s Exhibit 14.
The Ddundu rally video was admitted as P.Exhibit 15, with its transcription and translation marked P.Exhibits 15(a) and 15(b), respectively.
The Wanjeyo rally video was admitted as P.Exhibit 16, alongside its transcription and translation marked P.Exhibits 16(a) and 16(b).
The Namawojjolo rally video was admitted as P.Exhibit 17, with its transcription and translation marked P.Exhibits 17(a) and 17(b).
The court ordered that costs be in the cause.
The ruling does not determine whether the alleged bribery or other electoral offences occurred. Instead, it allows the contested electronic records to form part of the evidence that will be considered when the court makes its final determination.
Kibuule is seeking the nullification of the election and an order for a fresh poll in Mukono County North, where Kiwanuka was declared the winner.
English 