Justine Nameere
HABARI DAILY I Kampala, Uganda I The country stood in anticipation of the judge’s verdict, which turned in favor of Justine Nameere, the junior minister for Lands.
The Masaka High Court today dismissed Rose Nalubowa’s election petition, upholding Justine Nameere’s victory in the January 2026 parliamentary elections. But beyond determining who represents Masaka City as Woman Member of Parliament, the ruling has reopened questions about electoral integrity, accountability and public confidence in Uganda’s democratic institutions.
Justice Bernard Namanya upheld Nameere’s election despite finding that the Electoral Commission had failed to safeguard election materials and that the recount proceedings breached electoral law. The judge ruled that Nalubowa had not proved that the irregularities substantially affected the final result.
The decision places the spotlight on the “substantial effect” principle, under which election irregularities do not automatically invalidate a result unless the petitioner demonstrates that they materially affected the outcome.
For Uganda’s democracy, the ruling presents a difficult question: how can courts protect the numerical choice of voters while ensuring that electoral procedures are followed and election materials remain secure?
A test for electoral accountability
The dispute began after the January 15 election, when the Electoral Commission declared Nalubowa, the National Unity Platform (NUP) candidate, winner with 25,443 votes against Nameere’s 20,324.
Nameere, who contested on the National Resistance Movement (NRM) ticket, challenged the declaration, arguing that results from several polling stations had been omitted.
A recount ordered by Masaka Chief Magistrate Abert Asiimwe reversed the outcome, giving Nameere 25,502 votes against Nalubowa’s 23,176, a margin of 2,326 votes.
Nalubowa subsequently petitioned the High Court, alleging that officials counted votes despite broken seals, missing ballots and compromised ballot boxes.
Justice Namanya upheld important parts of her complaint. The court found that election materials had not been adequately secured, that some ballot boxes were open or broken and that the recount continued despite concerns about the integrity of the materials. Nine polling stations were also excluded from the exercise.
The judge further held that the chief magistrate acted contrary to electoral law by declaring Nameere the winner, a responsibility that belonged to the returning officer after receiving the recount certificate.
“A recount is not a mechanical exercise in re-opening ballot boxes; it is a judicial process intended to verify, with greater security and reliability, the numerical will, expressed by the electorate,” Namanya said.
The findings underscore the importance of secure ballot storage, transparent counting and strict adherence to electoral procedures. Such safeguards are central to ensuring that voters and candidates can trust the results announced by electoral authorities.
Why the irregularities did not overturn result
Despite identifying breaches, the court ruled that Nalubowa had not demonstrated that they substantially affected the outcome.
The judge considered 1,353 votes recorded on certified tally sheets and declaration forms from the nine excluded polling stations. These comprised 743 votes for Nameere and 610 for Nalubowa.
“Even if all the 1,353 votes were awarded to Nalubowa, the court reasoned, she would have obtained 24,529 votes, leaving her 973 votes behind Nameere.”
The judge also faulted Nalubowa’s legal team for failing to provide a polling-station-by-polling-station analysis showing errors in the certified recount figures. The court said she had neither produced the complete recount record nor demonstrated diligent but unsuccessful efforts to obtain the necessary documents.
“The declaration of the 1st respondent, Nameere Justine, as the winner of the election therefore stands,” Namanya ruled.
The decision illustrates the demanding evidentiary burden facing candidates who seek to overturn election results. It also raises concerns about whether procedural violations can be adequately remedied when the evidence needed to demonstrate their full effect is unavailable.
Public confidence and political competition
For opposition supporters, the case may deepen concerns about the reliability of electoral processes and the effectiveness of court petitions as a remedy for disputed elections. The judgment does not establish that the recount changed the electorate’s choice, but its findings on compromised election materials expose weaknesses that electoral authorities must address.
The ruling also reinforces Nameere’s position in Masaka City, where the closely contested election drew attention to competition between the ruling NRM and opposition NUP.
Following the judgment, Nameere thanked President Yoweri Museveni and Chief of Defence Forces Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba for supporting her during the dispute. In a statement posted on X, she alleged that unnamed NRM officials had worked with NUP members to frustrate her political career.
She also said Gen Kainerugaba had directed an investigation into the alleged political networks. Nameere did not identify the individuals she accused, and her statement did not provide details of the investigation or its findings.
Her claims remain separate from the court’s determination of the election petition.
A lesson for electoral institutions
The wider democratic significance of the ruling will depend partly on how electoral institutions respond to the failures identified by the court. Securing ballot boxes, documenting every stage of a recount, accounting for all polling stations and ensuring that officials act within their legal mandates are essential to preventing similar disputes.
The judgment also demonstrates that election petitions depend not only on identifying irregularities but on presenting sufficient evidence to show their effect on the result.
For Uganda, the challenge is to ensure that the substantial-effect standard protects the genuine choice of voters without diminishing the importance of lawful electoral procedures. A numerical margin may determine a legal outcome, but public confidence also depends on whether the process producing that margin is credible.
Nameere retains her parliamentary seat, while Nalubowa was ordered to pay the costs of the petition. Yet the questions raised by the case extend beyond the two candidates. Ultimately, Uganda’s democratic institutions will be judged not only by whether they declare winners, but by whether they can demonstrate that elections and recounts are conducted transparently, securely and in accordance with the law.
About the Author
