The pharmacist and public affairs commentator argues that Justice Bernard Namanya applied different standards when assessing whether electoral irregularities substantially affected results, raising questions about consistency in election petition rulings.
Public affairs commentator Anthony Natif has questioned the consistency of High Court Judge Bernard Namanya’s reasoning in two parliamentary election petitions, arguing that the judge’s treatment of electoral irregularities in the cases raises difficult questions about the application of the law.
Natif’s criticism follows Wednesday’s judgment upholding the election of State Minister for Local Government Justine Nameere as Masaka City Woman MP, despite findings that a court-ordered recount that gave her victory had been conducted in breach of electoral law.
In a commentary published on X, Natif juxtaposed the judgment in Rose Nalubowa v Justine Nameere and Others with Namanya’s May 2025 decision nullifying Elias Nalukoola’s election as Kawempe North MP, arguing that the judge appeared to apply different evidential standards when determining whether irregularities had substantially affected election results.
Natif, a pharmacist who has developed a profile as a public affairs commentator with a keen analytical mind, questioned why the disenfranchisement of registered voters featured prominently in the Nalukoola decision while the Nameere judgment focused on the number of votes actually cast at polling stations excluded from a recount.
“It appears that in his decision to annul the Nalukoola election, His Lordship lowered the substantiality bar under Section 80 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, while in the decision to uphold Ms Justine Nameere’s election, the His Lordship raised it,” Natif wrote.
The comparison raises an important legal question: how should courts determine whether breaches of electoral law are serious enough to justify setting aside an election?
Under Section 80(1)(a) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, an election may be set aside where non-compliance with electoral law and the failure to conduct the election in accordance with the law’s principles substantially affected the result.
The provision requires more than proof that electoral rules were breached. A petitioner must also establish the necessary connection between the breach and the election outcome.
It is the application of this second requirement that lies at the heart of Natif’s criticism.
In the Nalukoola case, Namanya nullified the March 2025 Kawempe North by-election after finding that the Electoral Commission had failed to count, declare and tally results from 14 polling stations affected by violence, involving 16,640 registered voters.
Nalukoola had been declared the winner with 17,939 votes against 9,058 for his challenger, Faridah Nambi Kigongo, giving him a margin of 8,881 votes.
The judge concluded that the failure to account for the 14 polling stations had substantially affected the result, reasoning that the disenfranchisement of the voters placed the declared victory in doubt. The court also found that Nalukoola had campaigned on polling day, contrary to electoral law.
Natif argues that the judge’s reasoning in that case relied on the potential electoral significance of the registered voters whose polling stations had not been accounted for, rather than limiting the analysis to votes actually cast.
He contends that the same approach should have informed the assessment of the irregularities in the Nameere petition.
The dispute over the Masaka City Woman MP seat arose from the January 15, 2026 general election, in which Nalubowa was initially declared the winner with 25,443 votes against Nameere’s 20,324.
Nameere subsequently sought a recount, arguing that results from some polling stations had been omitted from the final declaration. The recount reversed the outcome, giving Nameere 25,502 votes against Nalubowa’s 23,176, a margin of 2,326 votes.
Nalubowa challenged the recount, arguing that compromised electoral materials and the exclusion of polling-station results undermined the reliability of the declared outcome.
In his October 21, 2026 judgment, Namanya found that nine polling stations had been excluded after irregularities were identified in ballot boxes and related electoral materials.
The problems included broken or open ballot boxes, missing ballot papers and discrepancies in ballot-accountability records.
The judge also found that the Electoral Commission had failed in its statutory duty to safeguard election documents under Section 71 of the Parliamentary Elections Act. He further faulted the Chief Magistrate for declaring Nameere the winner, noting that the statutory responsibility to declare and return the elected candidate rested with the Returning Officer.
Despite these findings, the judge dismissed Nalubowa’s petition, ruling that she had failed to prove that the irregularities substantially affected the result.
The nine excluded polling stations had 3,886 registered voters, but the actual votes cast and excluded from the recount amounted to 1,353.
Namanya reasoned that even if all 1,353 votes were added to Nalubowa’s tally of 23,176, she would have obtained 24,529 votes, still 973 fewer than Nameere’s 25,502.
The judge also faulted Nalubowa for failing to provide a polling-station-by-polling-station analysis demonstrating that the recount figures were erroneous.
“Accordingly, notwithstanding that the recount was conducted in non-compliance with the electoral law, the petitioner has not established that the non-compliance affected the election result in a substantial manner,” Namanya ruled.
Where Natif sees a contradiction
The apparent departure from the reasoning in the earlier case has led Natif to question the consistency of the court’s approach.
“It’s hard to see how the Learned Justice of the High Court diverted from his earlier decision. Unless of course the courts are playing partisan politics,” he wrote.
Natif argues that if the judge’s reasoning in the Nalukoola case was that the exclusion of 16,640 registered voters could cast doubt on a victory secured by a margin of 8,881 votes, the exclusion of nine polling stations with 3,886 registered voters in the Nameere case should also have attracted close scrutiny.
The 3,886 registered voters exceeded Nameere’s winning margin of 2,326 votes. Natif questions why the judge focused on the 1,353 votes actually cast rather than considering the broader number of voters affected by the exclusion of the stations.
His argument raises a question about whether the court should have examined not only the numerical effect of the votes available for recount but also the implications of the compromised electoral materials and the exclusion of entire polling stations.
Natif’s comparison also places the reasoning in the two judgments under scrutiny, raising questions about the treatment of excluded voters, compromised electoral materials and the evidential burden placed on petitioners seeking to overturn election results.
Whether those differences amount to inconsistent application of the law can ultimately be assessed only by examining the full reasoning in both cases.