The Nabweru Chief Magistrate’s Court has nullified the election of Joseph Natamba as directly elected councillor for Nansana 7/8 Ochieng Ward popularly known as Yesu Amala, after establishing that declaration of results forms from 12 polling stations had been altered in his favour.
In a judgment delivered electronically on Friday, October 23, Chief Magistrate Hood Matovu declared Kuraish Ntale Kalema, the National Unity Platform (NUP) candidate, the duly elected councillor for the ward in Nansana Municipality, Wakiso District.
The court directed the Electoral Commission to remove Natamba, the National Resistance Movement (NRM) candidate, from the official register of elected councillors and gazette Ntale as the rightful winner.
“The petitioner (Ntale) is declared the validly elected candidate and the winner… having scored the highest number of votes, 638, as opposed to the first respondent (Natamba), who scored 165 votes,” the judgment reads in part.
Natamba had initially been declared the winner of the January 27 election after the Electoral Commission announced that he had obtained 1,143 votes against Ntale’s 716. Kato Rashid received 172 votes, while Kajubi Ismail Saava polled 100, bringing the total number of votes announced to 2,131. The commission gazetted the results on May 15.
Ntale challenged the outcome in a petition filed on May 27, arguing that the official results were inconsistent with the figures recorded on declaration of results forms issued to his polling station agents.
He told the court that he had deployed agents at all 22 polling stations and that each agent received a candidate’s copy of the declaration of results form after the tally.
According to his compilation of the forms, Ntale had garnered 638 votes, Natamba 165, Kato 178 and Kajubi 113. The documents recorded 1,094 valid votes and five spoiled ballots.
The petition arose from a disputed tallying process at the Wakiso District tally centre in late January, when NUP candidates protested over results they said did not correspond with the figures recorded on forms signed by their agents at polling stations.
Some candidates accused election officials of announcing figures that differed from the official polling station records. Security personnel subsequently removed several protesters, including Immaculate Namanda, the NUP candidate for woman councillor in Wamala Ward, after she confronted the returning officer.
Ntale testified that returning officer Tolbert Musinguzi did not announce the results from individual polling stations before declaring Natamba the winner.
He said he presented his copies of the declaration of results forms and asked the returning officer to require Natamba to produce his own copies for comparison. Ntale was later advised to pursue the matter through the courts.
His account was supported by Nantongo Lillian, Kiwanuka Dennis Bukenya Shaghaf and Kakembo Sudaice, who contested other positions in the same election and also served as his agents at different polling stations.
Lawyers representing Natamba and the Electoral Commission asked the court to reject Ntale’s forms, describing them as uncertified documents whose origin could not be established.
However, Matovu dismissed the objection, referring to Section 148 of the Local Governments Act, which requires presiding officers to give each candidate’s agent a signed copy of the declaration of results form.
The magistrate said the respondents could not reasonably question the origin of the documents “unless they chose to close their eyes to the clear provisions of the law”.
A comparison of the documents presented by the parties revealed substantial differences in the figures recorded at several polling stations.
At polling station 016, Nansana Ochieng II (Namam-Z), the certified form attributed 129 votes to Natamba and 20 to Ntale, yet the box for total votes was marked zero. The candidate’s copy, on the other hand, recorded four votes for Natamba and 36 for Ntale, alongside 45 valid votes and two spoiled ballots.
At polling station 015, Windsor Primary School (Nag-Nanse), the certified form showed Natamba with 150 votes and Ntale with 100. The candidate’s copy recorded seven votes for Natamba and 33 for Ntale.
The magistrate also identified several certified forms that did not bear the presiding officer’s signature. They included forms for polling station 007 at Nansana Ochieng II (A-Mas), Masjid Rahman; polling station 016 at Nansana Ochieng II (Namam-Z); and polling station 020 at Alliance High School Nansana (Namam-Nangi).
“Without a signature, a document cannot be what it purports to be,” Matovu said.
At polling station 007, the court observed that some figures appeared to have been overwritten, while an entry for female voters appeared to have been added in a different ink.
Matovu questioned why the presiding officers had failed to sign the forms despite an explicit instruction at the bottom of the first page requiring them to ensure that all the information was completed and signed.
Section 148(1) of the Local Governments Act requires presiding officers to complete and sign the prescribed copies of Form EC 9, as provided for under Schedule 8 of the law, before transmitting the results.
In one of the unsigned forms, the magistrate identified apparent alterations to several figures, including the number one in Natamba’s tally of 130 votes and the number eight in Ntale’s tally of 84 votes.
An additional figure, written in different ink, had also been inserted into the total number of female voters, making the figure appear as 125.
The court further noted that the signatures attributed to Emmanuel Luyima, Natamba’s agent, and Nabbosa, Kato Rashid’s agent, differed from those appearing on other forms submitted as evidence.
Matovu also questioned why all 12 certified forms recorded no spoiled ballots, even though Ntale’s copies showed spoiled ballots at several polling stations.
“Such a perfect score is impossible to achieve in local government elections,” he said.
Natamba told the court that the Electoral Commission had suspended the use of Biometric Voter Verification Kits (BVVKs) and instructed election officials to rely on manual voter registers.
However, Matovu found that the biometric kits had been used at nine polling stations, providing an additional source of information against which the disputed results could be assessed.
The Electoral Commission introduced BVVKs during the 2016 general elections to verify voters using fingerprint technology, prevent multiple voting and reduce impersonation. The system is intended to reinforce the principle of one person, one vote and improve the credibility of elections.
Although the use of the kits was limited or suspended during some phases of the 2026 elections, the data generated at polling stations where they operated became a key part of Ntale’s case.
At polling stations 004, 005 and 016, the kits recorded 67, 54 and 47 verified voters, respectively.
Ntale’s copies of the declaration of results forms showed 67, 53 and 45 votes at the three stations, respectively, with two spoiled ballots recorded at the third station. In contrast, the certified forms showed 132, 93 and 154 votes.
Matovu questioned how the Electoral Commission could issue biometric verification reports and certified declaration of results forms containing such sharply conflicting figures.
He also pointed to the correspondence between the figures on Ntale’s copies and the biometric records at polling stations where the kits had been used.
“The answer is somewhat clear: there was personal interference with the DR forms… but the person who did so could not change what was captured in the BVVK… just overlooked it,” Matovu ruled.
Although the court did not identify the individuals responsible for the alterations, it concluded that Natamba and the Electoral Commission, “by themselves or through their agents”, knew about or participated in the irregularities.
“Can we assume that neither of them knew about the forgery?” Matovu asked, adding that answering in the affirmative “will be akin to behaving like an ostrich which hides its head in the sand”.
The magistrate described Natamba as the “only net beneficiary” of the changes to the results.
He noted that Natamba had agents at 20 of the 22 polling stations and that those agents had signed the relevant forms and were entitled to receive their own copies.
However, Natamba did not present copies of the forms held by his agents to substantiate the results certified by the Electoral Commission. Matovu described the absence of the documents as “a mystery”.
Ntale had told the court that the alterations increased Natamba’s tally by 1,099 votes.
The magistrate found that the discrepancies were significant enough to change the outcome of the election. He observed that in local government elections, which are decided by a simple majority, “every vote matters”.
The court consequently declared Ntale the validly elected councillor and directed the Electoral Commission to amend its official records to reflect the judgment.
Natamba and the Electoral Commission were also ordered to pay the costs of the petition.
Both respondents had maintained that the election was free and fair, arguing that Ntale’s agents had not lodged complaints at polling stations on election day.
Their lawyers also dismissed the petition as the tantrums of a jilted lover, insisting that Ntale had failed to provide evidence to support his allegations. The court, however, found that the documentary evidence and discrepancies in the official records justified overturning the declared results.
English 