Mawogola North Member of Parliament Godfrey Aine Kaguta, alias Sodo, is locked in a legal battle with his former political rival, John Jet Tumwebaze, over Tumwebaze’s bid to represent himself in an election petition challenging Sodo’s victory.
Tumwebaze, who contested the seat as an independent candidate, petitioned the High Court in Masaka seeking to nullify Sodo’s election. He alleges that the polls were marred by gun violence, intimidation, voter bribery, ballot stuffing and other electoral offences.
He also challenges Sodo’s nomination by the Electoral Commission, alleging that the legislator does not possess the minimum academic qualification required to serve as a Member of Parliament.
The hearing of the substantive petition has, however, been delayed by a series of preliminary objections raised by the parties.
Sodo, through his lawyer Paul Kuteesa, has now mounted a challenge to Tumwebaze’s attempt to conduct the petition in person.
Appearing before Justice Thomas Ocaya Ojele on Tuesday, Kuteesa argued that Tumwebaze should not be allowed to simultaneously act as counsel and a witness in the same proceedings.
Kuteesa told court that Tumwebaze had sworn affidavits as a key witness in the petition and that allowing him to represent himself while also giving evidence could prejudice the proceedings.
He asked the judge to direct Tumwebaze to excuse himself from the bar and allow his lawyers to take over the conduct of the case.
Kuteesa further asked the court to strike out Tumwebaze’s key affidavits from the record, citing alleged inconsistencies in their drafting and filing which, he argued, rendered them incompetent for purposes of the petition.
Tumwebaze, through his lawyer Robert Rutalo, urged the court to dismiss Sodo’s application, describing it as inconsequential.
Rutalo argued that a litigant has a right to represent himself if he so chooses and that Tumwebaze’s decision to conduct his own case does not contravene any law governing legal practice.
He further argued that Tumwebaze, having personally participated in the contested election and witnessed the alleged irregularities, was well placed to present and defend the evidence before court.
Justice Ocaya Ojele directed Tumwebaze to file a written response to the application. The judge is expected to rule on the matter on October 7, ahead of the scheduled commencement of the substantive election petition hearing on October 12.
The dispute over self-representation is not the first legal clash between the two sides.
Earlier, Tumwebaze filed an application seeking to bar his former lawyers, Arcadia Advocates, from representing Sodo in the election petition.
Tumwebaze argued that Sodo had engaged a law firm that had previously represented him and was therefore in possession of confidential information that could potentially be used against him in the case.
The court, however, dismissed the application, finding that Tumwebaze had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims against the law firm.
