Amelia Anne Kyambadde (L) and Dr Hillary Innocent Kiyaga
HABARI DAILY I Kampala, Uganda I The High Court in Mpigi cited at least five major evidentiary and procedural shortcomings in Dr Hillary Innocent Kiyaga’s (Hilderman) election petition challenging Amelia Anne Kyambadde’s victory in the Mawokota North parliamentary election, ultimately dismissing his case and upholding her election.
In an electronic judgment delivered on November 13, 2026, Justice Jamson Karemani Karemera found that Kiyaga had failed to provide sufficient admissible evidence to establish electoral fraud, illegalities or substantial non-compliance with electoral laws that could have affected the outcome of the January 15, 2026 election.
The judgment exposed weaknesses ranging from defective affidavits by polling agents and reliance on uncertified election documents to failure to demonstrate fraudulent intentions behind alterations on declaration of results forms.
Kyambadde secured 27,075 votes against Kiyaga’s 24,801, giving her a winning margin of 2,274 votes. Here are the major flaws that undermined the petitioner’s case.
Defective affidavits from 22 polling agents
One of the biggest setbacks for Kiyaga was the court’s decision to strike out 22 of the 24 affidavits submitted by his polling agents.
Justice Karemani ruled that the affidavits violated Section 3 of the Illiterates Protection Act because they did not contain the required certificate identifying the specific person who wrote and translated the documents for the deponents.
Although the affidavits had been prepared in English and reportedly explained to the agents in Luganda, the court found that identifying a law firm was insufficient. The law required the individual responsible for writing and translating the affidavits to be named.
Consequently, only affidavits from two agents, Kafuuma Peter and Mutyaba Noordin, who had been cross-examined, remained admissible.
This substantially weakened Kiyaga’s ability to support his allegations with testimony from polling agents across the constituency.
Alterations on election forms did not prove fraud
The second major weakness was Kiyaga’s failure to demonstrate that alterations on declaration of results (DR) forms were deliberately made to manipulate the election results.
The petitioner presented evidence of visible alterations on DR forms from 24 polling stations, arguing that these irregularities pointed to electoral malpractice.
However, Justice Karemani held that the mere existence of alterations did not automatically establish electoral fraud.
He explained that under Section 95 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, an alteration becomes an offence where fraudulent intent is established.
The judge accepted evidence from Mpigi District Returning Officer Everest Twinomujuni, who explained that the changes were genuine clerical corrections made openly at the tally centre.
The court also noted that Kiyaga had not raised complaints about the alterations when the results were being tallied.
Consequently, the petitioner failed to establish that the changes were intended to manipulate the results in Kyambadde’s favour.
Reliance on uncertified election documents
Kiyaga also suffered a setback over his reliance on uncertified copies of declaration of results forms.
The court rejected the documents, preferring official certified copies maintained by the Electoral Commission.
The judge’s position was that the petitioner’s agents who supposedly obtained the disputed documents had their affidavits struck out, weakening the evidentiary foundation upon which the documents were being relied upon.
This meant that Kiyaga could not successfully use the uncertified documents to substantiate his allegations of electoral irregularities.
Missing agents’ signatures did not invalidate results
Another allegation concerned 16 polling stations where Kiyaga claimed declaration of results forms lacked signatures of his polling agents.
However, Justice Karemani ruled that an agent’s failure or refusal to sign a declaration of results form does not automatically invalidate the election results, provided the presiding officer signed the form.
The court distinguished between the statutory responsibility of presiding officers to authenticate election results and the participation of candidates’ agents in the process.
The absence of an agent’s signature, therefore, was not sufficient evidence that the results had been manipulated or improperly declared.
Failure to prove Kyambadde’s disqualification
Kiyaga further challenged Kyambadde’s eligibility, arguing that she was disqualified from contesting because of her previous position as Senior Presidential Advisor on Industry.
However, the court found that Kyambadde had formally resigned from the position, with her resignation accepted by the Office of the President on June 10, 2025.
Justice Karemani also faulted Kiyaga for failing to raise the eligibility objection before the Electoral Commission during the nomination period, thereby forfeiting his opportunity to challenge the nomination on that basis through the election petition.
Fishing expedition for evidence
The judge also dismissed Kiyaga’s earlier applications seeking to compel the production of documents, describing the requests as a fishing expedition.
The applications lacked sufficient specificity and sought extensive documentation without adequately demonstrating how the requested material would establish the alleged electoral offences.
Ultimately, the court found that Kiyaga had failed to prove substantial non-compliance with electoral laws or demonstrate that any established irregularities affected the outcome of the election.
About the Author
