Excitement has filled the political camp of Leader of Opposition in Parliament Joel Ssenyonyi after the High Court in Kampala dismissed a pre-election appeal challenging his nomination and that of other six contenders for Nakawa Division West Constituency parliamentary seat .
In the ruling on Thursday morning , Justice Collins Acellam said the Electoral Commission lawfully upheld their nominations despite clerical errors on nomination papers.
Justice Acellam rejected the appeal filed by People’s Front for Freedom (PPF) flag bearer Ivan Bwowe, who had argued that seven rival candidates were invalidly nominated after indicating Nakawa West instead of the gazetted Nakawa Division West Constituency on their nomination documents.
He had listed Leader of Opposition Joel Ssenyonyi Besekezi, Happy Nasasira, Ephraim Okuye, Herbert Anderson Burora, Vincent Norbert Okumu, Wilberforce Kyambadde, Rwamiti Apiuli and the Electoral Commission as the respondents in the electoral appeal.
Mr Bwowe, a lawyer by profession, had argued that Nakawa West is a non-existent constituency and that the Electoral Commission lacked the authority to amend or cure defects in nomination papers after the nomination exercise had concluded. He sought orders declaring him the only validly nominated candidate and asked the court to direct the Commission to declare him elected unopposed.
However, the court upheld the Commission’s earlier decision, which had found that the omission of the word Division was a clerical error that had been corrected during the nomination process through the control form signed by all candidates, including the petitioner.
Justice Acellam noted that while the other contestants had written Nakawa West on their nomination forms, a Control Form specifically designated for the Nakawa Division West was filled and signed by all the candidates and the Returning Officer, confirming the nomination of the candidates.
The judge held that the Electoral Commission acted within its statutory mandate under Section 15 of the Electoral Commission Act to correct irregularities in the electoral process. He further relied on Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, which requires courts to administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities.
“I agree that the failure by the 2nd–8th Respondents to fill in the correct name of the Constituency for which they were seeking nomination is a minor irregularity or misnomer which could be cured by the Commission,” the judge ruled.
Justice Acellam also observed that all candidates, including the petitioner, had demonstrated a shared understanding of the electoral area, citing campaign programs and other documents indicating an intention to contest in the same geographical constituency.
The court further noted that the petitioner himself had been declared nominated under the same Nakawa West description in official declaration forms, an anomaly he did not challenge at the time.
In dismissing the appeal, the judge cautioned against using technical errors to bypass the electoral process.
“To allow the appeal would have the effect of imposing on the voters of the Constituency the Appellant as their representative,” Justice Acellam stated, adding that “a proper mandate is through the ballot box”.
The court concluded that the petition had not succeeded and upheld the Electoral Commission’s decision to maintain the nominations. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.