Court sets May 12 to decide on Nalukoola’s bid to halt petition
Kawempe North Member of Parliament Elias Luymbazi Nalukoola.
What you need to know:
The decision follows an application filed by Nalukoola’s legal team, led by Mr. Samuel Muyizzi Mulindwa, seeking a stay of proceedings to allow them to appeal a ruling made by Justice Bernard Namanya
The High Court in Kampala will deliver a ruling on May 12, 2025, on whether to suspend proceedings in an election petition against Kawempe North MP Elias Nalukoola Luyimbazi.
The decision follows an application filed by Nalukoola’s legal team, led by Mr. Samuel Muyizzi Mulindwa, seeking a stay of proceedings to allow them to appeal a ruling made by Justice Bernard Namanya.
In the contested ruling, the judge permitted Nalukoola’s lawyers to cross-examine only 10 out of the 34 witnesses presented by the petitioner, Ms Faridah Nambi Kigongo, and selected the witnesses himself.
Mr Muyizzi described the directive as unjust and a violation of Section 63(4) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, which calls for a thorough judicial inquiry.
“Denying the first respondent’s legal team the chance to cross-examine the remaining 24 witnesses some of whom allegedly gave false information and lacked proper identification compromises our defense and risks admitting untested claims into the record,” he said.
He added: “This is dangerous. Some of these individuals are accusing our client of bribery and other electoral offenses without proving their identity or credibility. We must be allowed to challenge their evidence.”
Similarly, the court restricted Nambi’s lawyers to cross-examining only six of Nalukoola’s witnesses, including the MP himself.
Nambi’s legal team, led by Mr. Ahmed Mukasa Kalule, also sought to cross-examine two Electoral Commission returning officers. However, the court declined the request, noting that the officers were not included in the original petition and pleadings had already closed.
Electoral Commission counsel Mr. Eric Sabiiti opposed Nalukoola’s application, arguing that cross-examination is not an automatic right in election petitions, especially those that are time-bound.
“The law requires that these matters be resolved expeditiously,” Mr. Sabiiti said. He added that any dissatisfaction with the court’s decisions should be raised after the main petition is concluded not during interlocutory stages.
Tensions rose when Nalukoola’s lawyers announced plans to name the Electoral Commission as a respondent in their appeal to the Court of Appeal—a significant development, given that both the Commission and Nalukoola are jointly accused of election malpractice in Nambi’s petition.
In response, Mr Kalule described the planned appeal as “misconceived,” stating that interlocutory rulings in election petitions are not immediately appealable.
“The law is clear, you can only appeal after the final determination of the petition,” he told the court.
Justice Namanya is expected to rule on May 12 whether to stay the proceedings to allow for an appeal or to continue with the hearing as scheduled.
