By Aggrey Baba
There was chaotic drama at Kampala High Court on Wednesday as supporters of NUP’s Fred Nyanzi Ssentamu and NRM’s Madina Nsereko Ntale clashed at Twed Towers shortly after the hearing of the Kawempe South election petition, with political songs and heated exchanges inside the courtroom eventually spilling into a physical confrontation before police and court security stepped in to restore order.
The confrontation actually started inside the courtroom immediately after Justice Faridah Bukirwa adjourned proceedings. As people began preparing to leave, supporters from the two sides exchanged political chants and the situation quickly became tense, with the first physical confrontation taking place within the courtroom itself before the rival groups moved towards the reception area. It was during this initial scuffle that Lubaga Division City councillor James Mubiru, who was leading the Nyanzi side in song, was pushed and knocked to the ground.
This happened after a lengthy legal battle in which Nyanzi’s lawyers were seeking permission to introduce forensic evidence into the petition while Nsereko’s lawyers fought to block the application on grounds that the petitioner had known from the beginning what evidence he needed and had failed to present it within the strict timelines governing election petitions.
The courtroom had been packed by about 9am, with security officers stopping additional people from entering because there was simply no more room inside. The congestion was particularly noticeable because of the number of people who had come to follow Nsereko, while only a small group of Nyanzi supporters remained around the courtroom reception area where the police officers responsible for guarding the courtroom and maintaining order were stationed.
The large presence around the court had been noticeable throughout the proceedings. A list of people associated with Nsereko’s support group kept moving around as the hearing progressed, with individuals registering their names and putting down their telephone numbers. The registration was presented as a way of keeping proper accountability of those present, although it later came to the attention of this publication, through people familiar with the supporters’ activities, that some of those registering were allegedly people who had been paid to attend the court session.
That claim could not independently be established at the time, but the registration exercise was visible as the court proceedings continued and contributed to the impression of a deliberately organized crowd around the hearing.
Nyanzi, meanwhile, did not arrive with a comparable crowd. His position, according to people around him, was that he did not need to turn up at court with a large group of people because he understood that he was attending a court process rather than a campaign rally. Nyanzi’s side viewed the much larger Nsereko gathering differently, arguing that the mobilization was intended to create an impression that she still enjoyed substantial support in the constituency despite the election dispute being before court.
Inside the courtroom, however, the atmosphere was considerably more controlled. Justice Bukirwa appeared smart and composed as usual in a navy-blue suit worn over a black-and-green floral shirt, together with her familiar head veil. Her outstanding make-up and generally polished appearance stood out as she settled into her seat and began guiding the courtroom through the day’s business.
What particularly caught the attention of many in court was the calm and accessible manner in which she conducted the proceedings. Even as lawyers moved into complicated arguments, Bukirwa repeatedly checked whether people observing the proceedings were clearly understanding what was being discussed.
At several points, she spoke Luganda herself despite the presence of a translator, apparently wanting members of the public to hear and understand her explanations first-hand rather than depending entirely on the interpreter.
She occasionally went further by clarifying what lawyers from either side had said when their legal submissions became too technical.
That approach made her noticeably different from the rigid courtroom style many ordinary court users are accustomed to, where lawyers often speak in highly technical legal English and members of the public are left to follow as best as they can. Bukirwa appeared conscious that a politically sensitive election petition attracts ordinary people alongside lawyers, and she repeatedly brought the proceedings back to a level that omuntu w’awansi could understand.
The legal contest centred on senior lawyer Robert Rutaro’s application for permission to file a supplementary affidavit containing expert evidence, particularly handwriting and forensic analysis of election documents. Rutaro, who led Nyanzi’s legal team alongside youthful lawyer Ayub, maintained that the evidence would not introduce a new case because Nyanzi’s petition already contained allegations of forgery, alterations and switching or interchanging of results.
The application followed an earlier attempt by Nyanzi’s team to compel the Electoral Commission to provide original declaration of results forms, tally sheets and other election documents for examination. The court had rejected that application on September 28, with Justice Bukirwa holding that Nyanzi had not provided a sufficient evidential basis for the requested discovery and inspection. The ruling did not determine the substantive allegations in the main election petition.
Rutaro told court that the original documents were important because his team wanted to compare them with documents already in their possession before submitting them to a forensic expert. The comparison, he explained, could assist in examining signatures, handwriting, entries and other features on the disputed records.
After the discovery application failed, the lawyers found themselves pressed between a rock and a hard place because the evidence they wanted to examine most closely was held by the EC while the court had not compelled its production. Rutaro consequently reduced the request from the ten supplementary affidavits that had initially been contemplated to one expert affidavit, asking the judge to allow an expert to give an opinion on the documents available to the petitioner.
One of the issues he placed before court concerned an apparent discrepancy in the number of polling stations reflected in different election records. According to the petitioner’s side, the results declared on January 17, 2026 were based on 141 polling stations, with Nsereko recorded as having obtained 18,591 votes while Nyanzi received 11,292. Yet Rutaro pointed to a certified tally sheet which, according to his submission, indicated 165 polling stations while carrying exactly the same totals for the two candidates.
The significance of the discrepancy, as presented by Nyanzi’s lawyers, was that the second document contained 24 additional polling stations without any corresponding change in the candidates’ totals. Rutaro argued that such an issue required technical examination rather than simply leaving lawyers to interpret documents from the bar, hence his insistence on forensic evidence.
Nsereko’s legal team, led on Wednesday by former minister and senior lawyer Mwesigwa Rukutana, strongly resisted the application. Rukutana’s appearance was notable because, unlike the previous court session when Kamukama David had led Nsereko’s team, the former minister was now at the front of the defence side, supported by the other lawyers representing Nsereko, the Electoral Commission and the Kampala Returning Officer.
The respondents argued that Nyanzi’s lawyers had known the nature of their allegations from the moment they filed the petition and therefore should have secured any expert evidence within the statutory timelines. In their view, allowing a supplementary affidavit at this stage risked introducing new evidence after the deadline or turning the application into a disguised amendment of the petition.
They also questioned why the documents already available to Nyanzi had not been taken to a forensic expert earlier. If the petitioner already possessed copies, the defence argued, there was nothing preventing his lawyers from having them examined before bringing the matter to court. They further argued that the failed discovery application could not simply be replaced with another procedural route designed to achieve substantially the same objective.
The defence also challenged the suggestion that the allegation of forgery automatically required handwriting evidence, while questioning whether the proposed expert evidence had properly arisen from the respondents’ affidavits. They maintained that a rejoinder should respond to matters raised by respondents rather than become a vehicle for introducing an entirely new evidentiary process.
Justice Bukirwa repeatedly returned Rutaro to the question of timing. If the petitioner already knew that expert evidence would be necessary, she wanted to know why it had not been included in the initial affidavits and why the lawyers had waited for the outcome of the discovery application before pursuing the forensic route.
Rutaro explained that the team had expected the EC to cooperate. He told court that they had written several letters seeking the original documents and only approached court after those efforts failed. Their intention, he maintained, had always been to compare the EC’s originals with the documents in their possession before asking an expert to examine the differences.
Counsel Ayub reinforced that position by drawing attention to paragraph 17 of an affidavit filed by the second and third respondents, where they denied involvement in any forgery, manipulation or alteration of election documents. According to Ayub, that denial itself provided a basis for the petitioner to respond with expert evidence because the petitioner was not simply raising a new issue but answering a specific position taken by the respondents.
The arguments went on for close to an hour before Bukirwa reserved her ruling on the application for October 6. The substantive hearing of the petition was fixed for October 7, leaving both sides with another few days to prepare for the next stage of the dispute.
Outside the courtroom, the numerical imbalance between the two camps was unmistakable. Nsereko supporters occupied much of the surrounding court area, many dressed in yellow T-shirts carrying images of President Yoweri Museveni, Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba and Nsereko herself. Nyanzi’s side, by contrast, remained a relatively small group around the courtroom reception where police officers sat as they guarded the courtroom and kept order.
The size of the Nsereko group gave the court premises a distinctly political atmosphere. Their songs and chants could be heard around the building and, at several moments, the noise reached into the courtroom itself, prompting Bukirwa to direct security officers to caution those making the disturbance.
When the judge finally adjourned the hearing, the political temperature rose sharply. The small group of Nyanzi supporters at the reception, together with those who had remained inside the courtroom, broke into the NUP anthem “Tuliyambala Engule,” while the much larger Nsereko crowd answered with NRM songs, slogans and chants.
The exchange did not remain at the level of political singing for long. With the groups separated largely by the court’s security arrangements and the confined reception area, some Nsereko supporters moved towards the Nyanzi side and the confrontation became physical.
It was in this first confrontation, inside the courtroom immediately after adjournment, that Mubiru was pushed and knocked to the ground while leading the Nyanzi supporters in song.
Police and court security officers intervened quickly, directing Nyanzi’s supporters and his security detail to remain where they were and allow the tension to cool before attempting to leave the premises. The officers were effectively trying to prevent the confrontation from spreading further through the already crowded court environment.
As the situation moved outside, sharp verbal exchanges continued. Some Nyanzi supporters accused the Nsereko camp of mobilizing people who were not genuine Kawempe South residents in an attempt to create an impression of overwhelming support for the NRM candidate and to counter the political narrative that she had little support in the constituency.
They argued that Nyanzi had no reason to mobilise a large crowd for a court appearance because, unlike a campaign rally, the matter before Bukirwa was a legal process to be determined on evidence. Their argument was that the size of Nsereko’s crowd should therefore not be confused with evidence of what actually happened at the ballot.
They further alleged that some of the people who were carrying placards and shouting outside court were not from the constituency, while the registration exercise involving names and telephone numbers, they claimed, was connected to efforts to account for people who had allegedly been brought to the court premises.
Those allegations, including the claim that some supporters had been paid to attend, came from people on the Nyanzi side and could not independently be established.
As the Nsereko crowd continued to press around the entrance to Twed Towers, court security eventually moved against supporters who had crowded the doorway and chased them away from the immediate court entrance. The intervention was intended to restore order around the building and prevent the political confrontation from interfering with court operations.
After the situation had calmed down, the few Nyanzi supporters who had remained were also directed to leave the court premises. This allowed the police and court security officers to clear the area and ensure that normal business could continue at Twed Towers, which houses the Kampala High Court Criminal Division alongside other offices and businesses.
The day therefore ended with the legal and political sides of the Kawempe South dispute playing out almost simultaneously. Inside the courtroom, Nyanzi’s lawyers were fighting for permission to introduce forensic evidence that they believe could help establish their allegations concerning disputed election documents, while Nsereko’s lawyers were pressing the court to shut that door on procedural and evidentiary grounds.
Outside, the numbers, songs, accusations and eventual confrontation gave the case another dimension. Nyanzi’s supporters maintained that their candidate understood he was attending court, not a campaign rally, while Nsereko’s supporters turned up in much larger numbers and made their presence felt throughout the day. (For comments on this story, get back to us on 0705579994 [WhatsApp line], 0779411734 & 041 4674611 or email us at mulengeranews@gmail.com).
