Lawyers Seek Recusal of Judge Kinobe in Masaka Vote Recount Case

Lawyers ask Acting High Court Judge Simon Peter Kinobe to excuse himself from hearing the application for judicial review against the contested Masaka City Woman MP election vote recount.

National Unity Platform’s candidate for the MasakaDistrict Woman Member of Parliament, Rose Nalubowa, petitioned the High Court in Masaka,challenging the decisions leading to the recount of the Masaka City Woman MP votes and the declaration of NRM’s Justine Nameere as the winner. 

The Revisionary Clause Number 1 of 2026 in the High Court was issued for purposes of revising the entire record of the Chief Magistrate and all orders arising from the same, including the one that declared Juustine Nameere as the winner of the election.

The hearing of the petition started this morning in Masaka with the Acting, Sion Peter Kinobe presiding over the matter. 

The lawyers representing the applicant, Rose Nalubowa, who was the National Unity Platform-NUP candidate in the race, are challenging the independence of Judge Kinobe while hearing the matter brought to court.   

Alexander Lule Nkima, one of Nalubowa’s lawyers, indicates that, having participated in the 2021 NRM election primaries, it is most likely that he is biased against the opposition political parties, especially the NUP.    

“‎We have no information that when you were appointed a judge one year back, you indeed resigned from being an NRM member,” he noted. 

‎ He added that ‎ prior to his appointment as a Judge, Kinobe was conducting himself as an NRM activist, who used to appear on public spaces such as Radio and TV stations, and during that time, he was antagonistic with the opposition parties, mainly the NUP.   

The judge, in an exchange with lawyers representing the NUP candidate, who wanted him to excuse himself from hearing the application. He insisted that time doesn’t take away bias. 

The judge declined Kinobe declined to set aside the hearing of the application, saying he is ready to proceed in whatever manner. He said it was not enough to say that has been previously associated with the ruling NRM. The lawyers still raised concerns about the impartiality of Judge Simon Peter Kinobe. 

Courtroom Debate Over Alleged Judicial Bias in High-Profile Application

In a packed courtroom, counsel engaged in a lively exchange over whether a judicial officer could be considered impartial given past political affiliations. 

The matter, described as a “simple application,” quickly evolved into a nuanced discussion on perception, precedent, and the principles of justice. 

The judge opened the session by clarifying the procedural position: “I have explained that I did not refuse my salary, and I have declined to grant your application. I will give a detailed ruling as to why later,” he said, noting that a comprehensive ruling would likely follow “by clause of business this week.” The lawyer for the applicant requested a short adjournment to consult their client. 

“My Lord, I was trying to get a few instructions from our client, but I think for me to appreciate them in about five minutes,” the counsel explained. The judge agreed to a brief pause but cautioned, “Whether you have instructions or not, I have an application before me. I will proceed. Please make no mistake.”

The discussion quickly turned to issues of perceived bias stemming from the judge’s past political engagement. “For as long as I live as a judge, if I say hi to a person in NRM, I am assumed to be NRM.” Said Kinobe.    

He emphasized that prior associations with political parties, including candidacy in primaries, could not create an appearance of partiality.  “Does time take away bias?” he asked, eliciting a light-hearted exchange about love and the passage of years.    

The lawyer clarified that the matter concerned public perception, not affection:   “We are talking about perception. We are talking about fidelity to fabric perception. You have a judge who has been on TV… The public have been seeing you defending NRM as against the NUP.” 

A key point of contention was the principle that parties cannot choose their judge. The counsel stressed the constitutional right under Article 28 to an independent tribunal: “If the party says I don’t feel you are independent, you are going to get an independent judgment. That is the reason as to why this application is made.” 

The judge allowed submissions to continue, emphasizing that judicial notice had been taken of publicly available information.

“You can even say you have brought a million evidence when you have brought none,” he observed, highlighting the limits of the counsel’s claims. The debate also focused on the concept of “apparent knowledge.” 

Counsel argued that past involvement with the ruling party raised questions about the judge’s impartiality: “The apparent knowledge is the fact that you have been associated with NRM for the last few years until when you were appointed.” 

The judge responded firmly, clarifying that the history of past political engagement alone did not automatically imply bias. 

Throughout the proceedings, the judge maintained control of the courtroom, balancing procedural fairness with a measured approach to the constitutional issues raised. 

“There is no premature presumption of partiality before you, my Lord,” he concluded in response to the submissions. By the end of the session, it was clear that the court was carefully considering both the principle of judicial independence and the public’s perception of fairness. 

Counsel were reminded that the application would proceed with or without full instructions, reflecting the urgency and seriousness of the matter before the High Court.   

The issues in the petition 

On February 2, 2026, lawyers for the aggrieved candidate filed a revision application challenging the declaration of  Justine Nameere as the Woman Member of Parliament for Masaka City. 

The case arises from a recount process that the lawyers say was riddled with procedural irregularities. Samuel Muyizzi, the Lawyer representing the NUP candidate, described the Chief Magistrate’s handling of the matter as “wrong in procedure.”  

He explained that “We made an application before His Worship Albert Asimwe, requesting a certificate of recount for the Masaka City Woman MP seat, arising out of a wrongful recount process.” He laid out several grounds for the application. 

“We have confessed that it was wrong for the Chief Magistrate to proceed with hearing this matter outside the mandated four days,” he said.

“It was wrong to proceed on recount during the weekend, and it was wrong to disregard his own orders—orders stating that no recount should proceed if any boxes were tampered with. Yet, he made orders arising from such a process. That is why we have asked the High Court to set aside these decisions.” 

The lawyer also criticized the magistrate for ignoring previous applications aimed at ensuring transparency. 

“Before the recount, we had applied for him to use what we call a parking list of seals to determine whether the seals on the boxes were the ones designated for each respective box. He refused to follow the parking list. That is irregular.” 

In addition, the counsel said the magistrate denied a crucial request to use the Biometric Voter Verification Kit (BVVK), which could have verified the authenticity of ballots.

“Had he accepted to use this BBVK machine, many of the ballots he counted, which were not part of the Electoral Commission’s official materials, would have been excluded,” he explained. The lawyer emphasized that the magistrate’s role in the recount was judicial and non-delegable.

“It is not enough that he declared the results. He had to personally determine what ballots were counted and which qualified to be counted. 

Those are judicial decisions, and they cannot be delegated. That entire process was wrong in procedure.” Highlighting inconsistencies, he noted, 

“The Chief Magistrate had a lot of contradictions, even within his own decisions. The rulings he made in Kalungu West, Bukomasimbi, and Masaka City all contradict each other. We will present all these to the High Court for revision. Such a record cannot remain in this court; it has to be quashed and set aside.” The counsel concluded by reiterating the ultimate aim of the revision application:

“We maintain that the actual winner of the election is Ross Nalubowa, and we are confident the High Court will set aside all these procedural irregularities, unlawful actions, and orders that arose from the recount.   

****URN****