By Aggrey Baba
Senior lawyer Robert Rutaro has secured a significant procedural breakthrough for NUP’s Fred Nyanzi Ssentamu in the battle challenging NRM’s Madina Ntale Nsereko’s victory in the Kawempe South parliamentary election.
Justice Faridah Shamilah Bukirwa Ntambi on Monday, October 5, 2026, allowed Nyanzi to file a supplementary affidavit from a handwriting forensic expert, opening the way for expert examination of disputed election documents.
The decision followed a heated legal contest between Rutaro, who led Nyanzi’s team, and senior lawyer and former minister Mwesigwa Rukutana, who led the opposition to the application.
Rutaro’s application came after an earlier attempt by Nyanzi’s lawyers to obtain original Electoral Commission (EC) documents for inspection was rejected. Rather than abandon the evidentiary issue, the legal team narrowed its request from ten supplementary affidavits to one expert affidavit based on documents already available to the petitioner.
Rutaro argued that the forensic evidence would not introduce a new case but would assist court in examining allegations already contained in the petition, including alleged forgery, alterations and switching of electoral results.
Rukutana’s team opposed the application, arguing that Nyanzi and his lawyers had known about the alleged discrepancies when the petition was filed and should have obtained expert evidence within the prescribed timelines, further arguing that the application amounted to an attempt to fill an evidential gap and circumvent the earlier ruling on discovery, but Justice Bukirwa rejected that characterization.
The judge found that the proposed forensic affidavit related to allegations already pleaded in the petition and noted that the substantive matter had not yet proceeded to scheduling, also holding that the respondents could be given an opportunity to respond, removing concerns about prejudice.
“I am not persuaded that the Petitioner should be shut out from placing the forensic evidence before Court,” Justice Bukirwa ruled.
The court has directed Nyanzi to file and serve the forensic affidavit by October 7. Nsereko and the other respondents have until October 12 to respond, after which the parties will file a joint scheduling memorandum on October 13. The substantive petition is scheduled for hearing on October 14 at 9:30am.
At the centre of the forensic application is an alleged discrepancy in the electoral records.
Nsereko was declared winner with 18,591 votes against Nyanzi’s 11,292. Nyanzi’s lawyers have pointed to records showing results from 141 polling stations carrying those totals, while another certified tally allegedly covers 165 polling stations but records exactly the same votes for both candidates.
Rutaro argued that the discrepancy, together with allegations concerning signatures, handwriting and alterations, required technical examination rather than competing interpretations by lawyers.
The forensic route became necessary after Nyanzi’s earlier application for discovery and inspection of original EC documents failed. Nyanzi’s team had wanted to compare the originals with copies obtained by its agents and other candidates before submitting them for expert examination.
Former minister Rukutana’s team maintained that the petitioner already possessed documents that could have been examined earlier and that the court should not permit additional evidence after the statutory timelines.
Rutaro countered that his team had first sought the original records from the EC and only turned to the forensic application after that route was unsuccessful.
The ruling does not establish that the alleged forgery or alterations occurred, nor does it make any finding of wrongdoing against Nsereko. It simply allows Nyanzi to place the proposed expert evidence before court, where its weight will be considered alongside the respondents’ responses.
The legal contest has unfolded against a charged atmosphere around the petition. During the previous hearing, the courtroom was packed with supporters of both candidates. Political chants broke out after proceedings, eventually spilling into a confrontation at Twed Towers before police and court security intervened.
Inside the courtroom, however, the central battle remained legal, with Rutaro seeking room for forensic examination of disputed records, while Rukutana’s team sought to keep the additional evidence out on procedural grounds. (For comments on this story, get back to us on 0705579994 [WhatsApp line], 0779411734 & 041 4674611 or email us at mulengeranews@gmail.com).
