Busiki MP Election Petition: Court Reserves Judgment

The judicial process to determine the validity of Joel Waiswa Azalwa’s election as the Member of Parliament for Busiki Constituency has reached a crucial stage.

The High Court in Iganga has now closed the evidence hearing concerning the petition filed by Paul Akamba, the National Resistance Movement (NRM) candidate.

Akamba is challenging Azalwa’s victory, which occurred in the January 15 polls. Azalwa had contested as an independent candidate after his NRM party membership was successfully challenged by Akamba before the party tribunal.

During the proceedings, Akamba, who testified as the lead petitioner witness, alleged that violence against his supporters, pre-ticking of ballot papers, and rigging significantly impacted the election outcome at several polling stations. He presented specific examples, such as Nalusolo Polling Station, where the number of votes recorded for the respondent exceeded the ballot papers issued. Similar discrepancies were highlighted at Budongo A-I Polling Station.

Responding to questions from the respondent’s lawyer, Akamba affirmed that the vote tallies themselves indicated evidence of pre-ticking and violence. A video allegedly showing individuals pre-ticking ballot papers was also presented.

Azalwa, testifying as a respondent witness, acknowledged the possibility of discrepancies at Nalusolo and confirmed the occurrence of pre-ticking and violence at Budongo A-I, where his vote count surpassed the number of voters.

Former Namutumba District Returning Officer Margret Kugonza also testified, corroborating the reports of violence and pre-ticking at Budongo A-I and confirming discrepancies between issued ballots and voter numbers at both Nalusolo and Budongo A-I.

Justice Patience Lubagumya has set October 17 and 18 for the parties to file their final submissions. The judgment is scheduled for November 10.

Both sides expressed confidence in their respective positions following the closure of the evidence hearing. The petitioner’s legal team views the respondent’s alleged attempts to bribe a witness as an admission of guilt, while the respondent maintains their victory will be upheld.