Kampala, Uganda – Kawempe North MP Erias Nalukoola Luyimbazi has petitioned the High Court in Kampala to halt the ongoing hearing of an election petition filed against him, citing unfair limitations imposed on his legal defense.
Appearing before Justice Benard Namanya on Friday, Nalukoola’s legal team led by Counsel Samuel Muyizzi Mulindwa requested the Court to stay proceedings and grant them leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
The move follows a ruling by Justice Namanya earlier in the day, which restricted Nalukoola’s legal team to cross-examining only 10 of the 34 witnesses presented by his challenger, Faridah Nambi Kigongo.
The judge not only limited the number of witnesses but also selected the specific individuals to be cross-examined — a move Nalukoola’s team argues undermines their right to a full and fair defense.
“We sought to cross-examine all witnesses, some of whom we believe do not exist or lacked identification during testimony. Their evidence, if left uncontested, risks being admitted as fact — including damaging allegations that my client committed electoral offenses like voter bribery and campaigning on polling day,” said Muyizzi.
In response, the Court also granted Nambi’s legal team permission to cross-examine only six of Nalukoola’s witnesses, including Nalukoola himself.
Muyizzi further argued that the judge’s decision contradicts Section 63(4) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, which he said enshrines the right to a thorough judicial inquiry in election petitions.
He warned that unless the Court grants leave to appeal, the fairness of the entire petition process could be compromised, and any future appeal rendered useless.
“The damage would be irreparable if the hearing proceeds without allowing cross-examination of crucial witnesses. We request that proceedings be stayed pending guidance from the Court of Appeal,” he added.
However, the Electoral Commission’s litigation counsel, Eric Sabiiti, countered that cross-examination rights are not automatic in election petitions and that courts are required by law to expedite such matters.
“Election petitions are meant to be handled swiftly. Not being cross-examined does not, in itself, violate one’s rights,” Sabiiti stated.
He also argued that appeals in such cases should be made only after a final decision is rendered by the High Court — not on interim rulings.
Sabiiti’s position marks a shift in dynamics, as the Electoral Commission and Nalukoola had previously aligned in defending the election outcome against Nambi’s accusations.
Nalukoola’s legal team now says the EC will be listed as a respondent in their planned appeal.
Nambi’s lawyer, Ahmed Kalule, dismissed Nalukoola’s move as premature and without legal basis.
“You cannot appeal against an interlocutory decision in an election petition. The law allows appeals only after a final determination on whether the respondent was validly elected,” Kalule argued.
Justice Namanya has set May 12 as the date for ruling on Nalukoola’s request to stay proceedings and appeal the cross-examination decision.
The case stems from the March 13, 2025, by-election in Kawempe North, where Nalukoola, running on the opposition National Unity Platform (NUP) ticket, was declared the winner with 17,939 votes.
Nambi, representing the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM), came second with 9,058 votes.
Nambi filed a petition contesting the results, alleging widespread electoral malpractice, including voter bribery and procedural irregularities.
She claims Nalukoola handed cash to several voters, including UGX 10,000 to Kyemba Nathan Muwanguzi and UGX 5,000 to George Mawumbe and Geoffrey Wamukubira.
The Electoral Commission has strongly denied the accusations, insisting that the election was free, fair, and conducted in accordance with Uganda’s electoral laws.
English 