Politics 11 May 2026 Daily Monitor (Uganda)
Court Dismisses NRM Party Election Challenge for Speaker, Deputy
The High Court has dismissed a legal bid to overturn the NRM's endorsement of Anita Among and Thomas Tayebwa for Speaker and Deputy Speaker. The court cited a lack of legal standing and failure to exhaust internal party processes as grounds for dismissal. Source: https://www.monitor.co.ug/uganda/news/national/court-dismisses-petition-challenging-nrm-cec-s-endorsement-of-among-tayebwa-5454894
The High Court Civil Division has thrown out a judicial review application that sought to nullify the National Resistance Movement’s (NRM) decision to back Anita Among and Thomas Tayebwa for the positions of Speaker and Deputy Speaker of Parliament.
Justice Collins Acellam ruled on May 11, 2026, siding with preliminary objections raised by the NRM and the two parliamentary leaders. The court found the application legally flawed due to insufficient standing and the applicant’s failure to use the NRM’s internal grievance mechanisms.
The case was initiated by Jack Nsubuga, who claimed to be an NRM member. He argued that the NRM Central Executive Committee’s (CEC) endorsement of the incumbents on January 29, 2026, was undemocratic and excluded other potential candidates within the NRM Parliamentary Caucus.
However, the respondents, including the NRM party, Ms Among, and Mr. Tayebwa, successfully argued that the petition was without merit. Justice Acellam highlighted that Nsubuga failed to obtain a representative order to sue on behalf of others and lacked the necessary locus standi as he is not a Member of Parliament.
Crucially, the court underscored the ‘Doctrine of Exhaustion,’ stating that Nsubuga did not demonstrate that he had exhausted all available internal party dispute resolution procedures before approaching the courts. The judge emphasized that while political parties are bound by law, courts should refrain from intervening in internal political processes unless clear illegality is evident.
“Courts are guardians of legality, not supervisors of political strategy,” Justice Acellam stated.
Despite the dismissal, the court ordered each party to bear its own costs, acknowledging the case touched upon significant constitutional and party democracy issues.