The High Court in Luwero has rejected an attempt by former Nakaseke Central Member of Parliament Allan Mayanja to introduce additional electronic evidence in his election petition challenging the outcome of the January 2026 parliamentary election.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Samuel Emokor on Monday as the court commenced hearings in the petition filed by Mayanja against the current Member of Parliament Kabuye Kyofa and the Electoral Commission.
Kyofa, also the state Minister for Kampala and Metropolitan Affairs, was declared the winner of the Nakaseke Central parliamentary election with 13,685 votes, defeating Mayanja, who contested on the National Unity Platform (NUP) ticket and garnered 8,178 votes.
Dissatisfied with the outcome, Mayanja, through Lukwago and Company Advocates, petitioned the High Court, challenging Kyofa’s victory and the Electoral Commission’s declaration of the results.
Mayanja alleges that results from 31 polling stations were improperly tallied and declared, arguing that the irregularities substantially affected the outcome of the election. He accuses the Electoral Commission of failing to conduct a free and fair election, claiming that the alleged irregularities cost him victory.
The petitioner further alleges that soldiers disrupted voting and that he was subjected to violence during the district tallying exercise.
When the parties appeared before Justice Emokor on Monday, the judge noticed a handwritten entry in his copy of the joint scheduling memorandum indicating that Mayanja intended to present electronic evidence in support of his allegation that Kyofa subjected him to violence during the tallying exercise.
Lawyers representing Kyofa, led by Geoffrey Ntambirweki Kandeebe, and the Electoral Commission, led by Nasser Sserunjogi, told the court that they were unaware of the proposed addition.
They accused Mayanja’s lawyer of attempting to introduce new evidence through a rejoinder, arguing that the material had not been properly incorporated into the evidence agreed upon during the scheduling process.
Sserunjogi argued that the petitioner was required to establish the authenticity and admissibility of the electronic evidence by identifying the person who recorded it, specifying when it was recorded and providing a transcript of the recording.
When the court asked whether a transcript was available, the petitioner acknowledged that it was not. However, Mayanja’s lawyer, Lawrence Kabuye, told the court that he had already shared a flash disk containing the video with the respondents. He added that the alleged incident had also been mentioned in the main petition.
In his ruling, Justice Emokor ordered that the additional electronic evidence be struck off, effectively excluding it from the proceedings. In a separate development, the judge allowed Kyofa’s lawyers to cross-examine 17 witnesses lined up by Mayanja, although the respondent had initially listed only two witnesses in the joint scheduling memorandum.
The respondents intend to question Mayanja, a handwriting expert and other witnesses expected to testify about alleged alterations to election results, violence and other irregularities cited in the petition.
Mayanja’s legal team has also indicated that it intends to cross-examine Kyofa, district presiding officers and other witnesses over alleged electoral irregularities that the petitioner argues could have enabled him to win the election.
By press time, the parties were still marking and identifying evidence to be used in the proceedings ahead of the commencement of cross-examination. The court has scheduled October 12 to 16 for the cross-examination of witnesses from both sides and the conclusion of the case. A date for the ruling will be set thereafter.