The High Court in Patong has dismissed an application seeking the recusal of Justice Fatuma Nanziri Bwanika from hearing and determining an election petition challenging the January 2026 parliamentary election results for Aruu County in Pader District.
In a ruling delivered by email on September 28, 2026, Justice Nanziri rejected allegations of bias, procedural impropriety and bribery raised by the petitioner, holding that none of the grounds established actual or apparent bias or created a real possibility of bias in the eyes of a fair minded and informed observer.
The application was filed after the conclusion of the petition hearing on September 21, despite the petitioner having participated in both the scheduling conference and the trial. The petitioner was represented by advocates Layoo Paul Julius and Kizza Oscar, who cross examined the Returning Officer and the third respondent, Hon. Komakech Christopher.
Justice Nanziri noted that the petitioner did not raise any complaint about the conduct of the proceedings during the scheduling conference or hearing. She observed that the petitioner is himself an advocate of the High Court and would therefore be expected to understand court procedures.
The recusal application was based on five broad complaints. The petitioner alleged that the court had altered the Joint Scheduling Memorandum, interfered with his lawyers during cross examination, addressed him harshly, improperly admitted the Returning Officer’s testimony through Zoom and was connected to allegations of bribery.
On the alleged alteration of the Joint Scheduling Memorandum, the judge said the record did not support the petitioner’s account of events.
According to the ruling, the scheduling conference was held on September 15 in the presence and participation of the petitioner. However, the parties had not conclusively agreed on whether witnesses would be cross examined and, if so, which witnesses. The matter was therefore adjourned to September 21 for completion of scheduling and commencement of the hearing.
On September 21, the judge summoned all counsel to her chambers to address outstanding administrative and procedural matters. The lawyers included Layoo Paul Julius and Kizza Oscar for the petitioner, Joseph Kyazze and Nahwera Patra for the first and second respondents, and Alex Musisi for the third respondent.
The court informed the lawyers that an issue concerning the effect of alleged non compliance with electoral laws had been omitted from the filed scheduling memorandum. Counsel also informed the court that the Returning Officer could not attend physically because of a medical emergency involving his daughter, but that arrangements could be made for him to testify virtually.
When the matter resumed in open court, counsel for the respondents informed the court that, after consultation among the parties, they had agreed to amend the Joint Scheduling Memorandum to include the additional issue. The petitioner’s lawyer, Layoo Paul Julius, confirmed that the position was agreed upon, while counsel for the third respondent also reiterated the agreement.
The revised memorandum was subsequently signed by all counsel and filed on the court record. The Returning Officer then testified and was cross examined through Zoom by the two advocates representing the petitioner, after which the same advocates cross examined the third respondent.
Justice Nanziri said the court had acted within its mandate in guiding the parties to include the additional issue. She noted that Section 80(1)(a) of the Parliamentary Elections Act requires a court dealing with alleged electoral non compliance to determine whether such non compliance affected the election result in a substantial manner.
The judge further held that the court has discretion under the Civil Procedure Rules to frame or amend issues necessary for determining a dispute. She therefore found no procedural violation in the amendment of the scheduling memorandum and no basis for recusal on that ground.
The petitioner also accused the judge of repeatedly interrupting his lawyers during cross examination, describing what he called about 40 instances of discourteous interference.
Justice Nanziri said court intervention in cross examination does not, by itself, demonstrate bias. She explained that cross examination in election petitions remains subject to the direction and control of the court, particularly because election petitions are required by law to be disposed of expeditiously.
After reviewing the court record, she found that her interventions were aimed at keeping the cross examination within the identified affidavits, clarifying responses and managing the pace of proceedings. She concluded that the interventions did not demonstrate that the court had descended into the arena of the dispute or developed a predisposition against the petitioner.
The judge also rejected the complaint that she had spoken harshly to the petitioner at the start of the hearing.
The petitioner had alleged that the judge addressed him rudely in a high tone after finding him seated at the advocates’ bar without being fully robed. He further claimed that he was ordered to move away from the bar.
Justice Nanziri confirmed that the petitioner had been seated at the bar and was not fully robed. She said the court asked him to relocate to allow properly dressed advocates to occupy the bar, unless he intended to participate as counsel for himself. In that case, she said, he was required to observe the applicable courtroom dress requirements or seek leave of court.
The judge noted that the petitioner complied with the direction and did not raise any objection or express discomfort at the time. She consequently found no basis for recusal on that ground.
On the use of Zoom to receive evidence from the Returning Officer, the petitioner argued that the virtual testimony was improperly admitted. He claimed that the witness was evasive when documents were raised, that the Zoom connection was problematic and that his lawyers were repeatedly urged to hurry because the link was due to expire.
The judge said Uganda’s Judicature (Electronic Filing, Service and Virtual Proceedings) Rules, 2025 provide for virtual proceedings and allow courts to conduct hearings through audio or video links.
She noted that, before the virtual hearing, counsel for the parties had consulted with the court about the possibility of receiving the Returning Officer’s evidence remotely because he was attending to his sick child. Counsel subsequently informed the court in open session that all parties were agreeable to the virtual hearing. The petitioner was present and did not raise an objection.
Justice Nanziri therefore held that the rules did not make production of medical evidence or the availability of loudspeakers in court preconditions for virtual testimony. She found that the virtual hearing had been conducted fairly and that the complaint did not warrant her recusal.
The most serious allegation concerned alleged bribery. The petitioner linked the allegation to statements allegedly made by the third respondent at a press conference after the court proceedings, which he said suggested an intention to influence the petition process.
Justice Nanziri said allegations of bribery against a judicial officer are serious and require credible evidence. While acknowledging that bribery can be difficult to prove because it may occur privately and without documentation, she said the material before her did not establish a credible evidential connection between the alleged statements and the judge.
The judge therefore found that the bribery allegation did not satisfy the objective test for establishing a real possibility of bias.
In determining the application, Justice Nanziri relied on the Constitutional (Recusal of Judicial Officers) (Practice) Directions, 2019. She said the applicable test is whether a fair minded and informed observer, having considered the relevant facts, would apprehend a real possibility that the judicial officer was biased.
She emphasised that dissatisfaction with procedural decisions or case management does not, without more, amount to evidence of bias. The applicant bears the burden of presenting credible evidence demonstrating circumstances that justify recusal.
The judge also considered the timing of the application significant, noting that it was filed only after the trial had concluded. She said the petitioner and his lawyers actively participated in the proceedings but did not raise concerns about the conduct of the hearing before its conclusion.
Justice Nanziri held that the timing of a recusal application is among the circumstances that a fair minded observer may consider when assessing the genuineness of an alleged apprehension of bias.
The court accordingly dismissed the application and declined to recuse Justice Nanziri from the election petition.
The judge said she would proceed to consider the written submissions of the parties and deliver judgment on the Aruu County election petition on November 5, 2026, as previously scheduled.
English 