The High Court in Wakiso has given Busiro East Member of Parliament Emmanuel Matovu Magoola one final week to file supporting affidavits from police forensic experts whose report is expected to play a central role in his defence against an election petition challenging his victory in the January 2026 general elections.
Justice George Okello issued the directive on Thursday during a scheduling conference in a petition filed by National Resistance Movement (NRM) candidate Hajji Abdul Kiyimba, who wants the court to overturn Magoola’s election.
The judge also granted Kiyimba two days after the filing of the supporting affidavits to respond, if necessary, while warning that the matter should not be subjected to further delays.
Official results show that Magoola, who contested as an independent candidate with the backing of the National Unity Platform (NUP), garnered 45,625 votes against Kiyimba’s 28,499, giving him a majority of 17,126 votes.
Kiyimba is challenging the results, alleging that the Electoral Commission unlawfully declared Magoola the winner following errors in the tallying process.
In preparing his defence, Magoola’s legal team examined declaration of results (DR) forms cited in the petition and identified about 130 documents they suspect were forged. The forms were subsequently submitted to the Uganda Police Directorate of Forensic Services for examination.
Magoola had earlier asked the court for permission to introduce the forensic report and supporting affidavits from the police officers who prepared it. The court granted him three weeks to file the documents.
However, when the matter returned for the scheduling conference, the defence had filed the forensic report without the accompanying affidavits from the experts.
Kiyimba’s lawyers opposed another extension, arguing that the respondents had already been given sufficient time and that repeated requests for more time could unnecessarily delay the hearing.
Abdul Kantuntu, one of the lawyers representing Magoola, told the court that although the team had secured the report, it had struggled to obtain affidavits from the two police officers who conducted the examination.
He explained that the officers had been engaged in other court cases in different parts of the country, making it difficult to have them available to swear the required documents.
“My Lord, one of them was in Masaka yesterday as a witness. But we are trying to get them if the court allows one more week,” Kantuntu told the court.
Justice Okello said the forensic evidence was important to resolving the dispute because the authenticity of the declaration of results forms is central to the petition.
“Everything goes to the DR forms. Which is correct and which is not. And it is in the interest of both parties to know the truth,” the judge said.
He added that the court wanted to hear directly from the experts who prepared the report so that their findings could be examined during the proceedings.
The judge noted that Kiyimba’s legal team should also have an opportunity to cross-examine the experts on their findings.
The court also considered whether the Electoral Commission could provide official copies of the disputed declaration of results forms to help establish their authenticity.
However, the commission did not attach the forms or other supporting documents when it filed its response to the petition.
Eric Sabiti, a lawyer representing the Electoral Commission, confirmed that the documents had not been filed and initially indicated that the commission would rely on the records already submitted by the parties.
When Justice Okello raised the possibility of obtaining independent records from the commission, Sabiti offered to produce the declaration of results forms and related materials still in its custody.
The judge questioned why the commission had not submitted the records earlier, given their importance to determining the dispute. He also raised concerns about whether their integrity could be guaranteed if they were introduced at this stage of the proceedings.
Davis Wisely Tusungwire, another lawyer representing Magoola, subsequently indicated that the defence would oppose the late introduction of the Electoral Commission’s documents, arguing that doing so could prejudice their client.
Following an off-record discussion, Kiyimba’s lawyers withdrew their objection to granting Magoola additional time but insisted that the extension should be the last.
Justice Okello subsequently allowed Magoola one week to file the affidavits and gave Kiyimba two days thereafter to respond, if necessary.
The petition is scheduled for hearing on October 29, 2026, when Kiyimba, the petitioner’s sole witness, is expected to undergo cross-examination.
During Thursday’s conference, the parties agreed that the trial would focus on four main questions: whether there was non-compliance with the Parliamentary Elections Act in the conduct of the Busiro East election; whether any such non-compliance substantially affected the election results; whether the Electoral Commission unlawfully declared and returned Magoola as the duly elected Member of Parliament; and what remedies the court should grant.
The case is among several petitions arising from the January 2026 general elections being handled by the High Court in Wakiso.
English 