The High Court in Masaka has upheld the election of State Minister for Local Government, Justine Nameere as the Woman Member of Parliament for Masaka City.
Nameere was dragged to court by National Unity Platform’s Rose Nalubowa who had initially been announced as the winner of the January 16 election but lost the seat following a vote recount in which it was found that the Electoral Commission had omitted results from eleven polling stations in the final declaration.
Dissatisfied with the outcome of the voter recount, Nalubowa challenged the results in the Masaka High Court.
On Wednesday, Justice Bernard Namanya ruled that although the recount conducted under the direction of the Masaka Chief Magistrate did not fully comply with electoral law, Nalubowa had failed to prove that the irregularities substantially affected the election outcome.
The judge explained that the evidence showed that the recount proceeded despite problems affecting the security and integrity of ballot boxes and other essential electoral materials.
He also found that nine polling stations had been excluded from the recount after ballot boxes were found open, ballot papers were missing, or discrepancies were identified in the accountability of electoral materials.
“A recount is not a mechanical exercise in re-opening ballot boxes; it is a judicial process intended to verify, with greater security and reliability, the numerical will, expressed by the electorate,” the judge noted.
He added that the integrity of electoral materials was fundamental to determining whether the votes recorded during the initial tally could be independently verified.
“It follows that where ballot boxes or other essential electoral materials are shown to have been opened, unsealed, missing, compromised, or otherwise exposed to tampering, continuing with the recount will be an exercise in breach of the electoral law,” he said.
The court also found that the Electoral Commission had failed in its statutory duty to safeguard the materials required for the recount.
Despite establishing irregularities in the recount process, Justice Namanya said Nalubowa had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the certified results were erroneous.
The judge noted that the petitioner had not presented a polling-station-by-polling-station analysis comparing the figures certified after the recount with those declared by the Electoral Commission before the recount.
“The petitioner did not undertake or place before the Court any polling-station-by-polling-station analysis identifying discrepancies between the figures certified by the Chief Magistrate following the recount on 1 February 2026 and the results declared by the Electoral Commission on 16 January 2026.”
He also found that Nalubowa had not produced the complete record of the recount proceedings.
Although she testified that she had written to the Chief Magistrate requesting the record, she acknowledged that the alleged letter had not been attached to the petition or otherwise produced in evidence.
Justice Namanya stated that the court therefore had no evidential basis upon which to verify the request or the alleged failure to provide the record.
The court also found that the petitioner had also failed to produce evidence that she had requested the recount certificate and accompanying documents transmitted to the Electoral Commission.
The judge held that these omissions deprived the court of material evidence needed to assess the validity of the certified results.
“The resulting evidential deficiency is fatal to her challenge to the vote recount figures certified by the Chief Magistrate,” the judgment states.
He added that Nalubowa had neither produced the necessary documents nor established that she had made diligent but unsuccessful efforts to obtain them from the relevant public offices.
A central issue was whether the irregularities substantially affected the election outcome, as required under Section 80(1)(a) of the Parliamentary Elections Act.
The court noted that the nine excluded polling stations had a combined total of 3,886 registered voters.
However, the actual votes cast for the two leading candidates at those stations totalled 1,353.
Justice Namanya said the actual votes cast, rather than the number of registered voters, provided the appropriate basis for determining whether the irregularities affected the result.
“Since the actual number of votes cast at the nine excluded polling stations is ascertainable and amounts to 1,353, that figure shall be used in applying the substantiality test instead of the hypothetical figure of 3,886 total registered voters at those polling stations.”
According to the recount certificate, Nameere received 25,502 votes, while Nalubowa obtained 23,176, giving Nameere a winning margin of 2,326 votes.
The court calculated that even if all 1,353 excluded votes were added to Nalubowa’s tally, she would have obtained 24,529 votes, still 973 votes fewer than Nameere.
Justice Namanya therefore noted that the excluded votes did not substantially affect the election result.
“The exclusion of 1,353 actual votes therefore did not affect the election result in a substantial manner,” he stated.
The judge explained that proving electoral irregularities alone was insufficient to justify setting aside an election.
“The petitioner must further demonstrate that the non-compliance with electoral law was severe enough to affect the result in a substantial manner.”
Consequently, Nalubowa’s petition was thrown out with costs.
“Accordingly, the prayers to overturn the election and to declare the petitioner the duly elected winner are rejected. The election petition is Page 55 of 55 hereby dismissed. The petitioner, Nalubowa Rose, shall pay the costs of the petition.”
