MUKONO – The parliamentary election petition challenging the victory of Abdulla Kiwanuka, commonly known as Mulimamayuuni, in Mukono North County took a fresh legal turn on Monday after lawyers representing former State Minister Ronald Kibuule asked the High Court to strike out Kiwanuka’s response, arguing that it does not comply with the requirements of the law.
The matter came before Mukono High Court Judge Godfrey Himbaza for mention and consideration of the parties’ joint scheduling memorandum.
Kibuule petitioned court challenging the result and is seeking, among other remedies, a recount of the votes. He has also raised concerns about electoral irregularities and malpractice during the election.
Today, Kibuule’s lawyers, Frank Kandiho and Ivan Bwowe, raised a preliminary objection concerning the manner in which Kiwanuka, the second respondent, filed his answer to the petition and accompanying affidavits.
Kandiho argued that the nature and content of a respondent’s answer to an election petition are prescribed by the Parliamentary Elections Act and the applicable election petition rules.
He referred court to Rule 8 of the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rules, which requires a respondent who intends to oppose an election petition to file an answer accompanied by an affidavit setting out the facts relied upon in support of that answer.
According to Kandiho, instead of setting out facts supporting his own answer to Kibuule’s petition, Kiwanuka’s response largely challenged the affidavit filed by Kibuule in support of the petition.
He argued that the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the petition should not be treated as the petitioner’s answer and, therefore, a respondent’s affidavit should contain facts supporting the respondent’s own answer rather than merely responding to the petitioner’s affidavit.
Kandiho also challenged what he described as an additional affidavit filed by Kiwanuka.
The petitioner’s lawyers told court that Kiwanuka had initially filed an affidavit and later filed another affidavit in support of his response. They argued that the applicable election petition rules do not provide a legal basis for the second respondent to introduce the additional affidavit in the manner it was filed.
Kandiho asked Justice Himbaza to strike out the disputed affidavit and the allegedly defective answer.
Once the documents are struck out, Kiwanuka would effectively be left without a valid answer to the petition.
The lawyer further asked court to award Kibuule costs and proceed with the petition on the basis that it would be effectively unopposed.
The objection centres on the procedural requirement for a respondent who contests an election petition to file an answer supported by an affidavit setting out the facts relied upon in defence.
Representing Kiwanuka, lawyer Chrysostom Katumba asked the court for time to respond, saying the objection had taken the defence by surprise.
Katumba requested permission to file written submissions addressing the issues raised by Kibuule’s lawyers before the court makes its determination.
Kandiho opposed the request, arguing that Kiwanuka’s legal team had already been notified of the objection through their lawyers, Medard Ssegona and Lugoloobi.
He argued that granting additional time could unnecessarily delay the proceedings and result in further adjournments in a matter that should be handled expeditiously.
Justice Himbaza subsequently adjourned the matter to Tuesday at 10:00am to allow Kiwanuka’s lawyers to respond to the preliminary objection.
Speaking outside court after the proceedings, Kandiho described the filing of the additional affidavit as “evidence smuggling” and reiterated his request for the disputed documents to be struck out.
Kiwanuka’s lawyers declined to comment on the matter after the proceedings.
The court is expected to hear Kiwanuka’s response on Tuesday before determining whether the objections raised by Kibuule’s legal team affect the validity of the second respondent’s defence and how the election petition will proceed.
