Madina Nsereko Under Mounting Pressure as Nyanzi Presents Damning Evidence in Kawempe South Election Petition

KAMPALA, Uganda

Madina Nsereko Ntale is facing mounting legal pressure as NUP parliamentary candidate Nyanzi Fred Ssentamu advances a detailed challenge to her declaration as the winner of the Kawempe South parliamentary election.

In submissions before the High Court of Uganda in Kampala, Nyanzi’s legal team presented a series of electoral irregularities that could put the declared outcome under serious scrutiny.

The submissions identify missing polling station results, conflicting electoral documents, alleged alterations of declaration forms and disputed vote allocations.

The emerging evidence places significant pressure on the respondents, particularly the Electoral Commission and the declared winner, to explain the discrepancies highlighted by the petitioner.

32,860 Voters Missing From the Final Tally

One of the most consequential issues concerns 47 polling stations whose results were allegedly excluded from the final declaration.

According to Nyanzi’s submissions, these stations represented 32,860 registered voters.

His lawyers argue that voting took place across all 212 polling stations in Kawempe South. However, results from 47 stations did not feature in the final tally.

The petitioner’s legal team further notes that the respondents did not dispute the non-inclusion of these results in their pleadings.

During cross-examination, the Returning Officer reportedly acknowledged that the tally sheet was generated using declaration of results forms submitted by individual polling stations.

This raises serious questions about the completeness of the declared results and the treatment of thousands of registered voters.

53 Polling Stations Raise Fresh Questions

Nyanzi’s legal team also identified discrepancies involving 53 contested polling stations.

According to the court submissions, the disputed documents contain allegedly altered entries, inconsistent signatures, unauthorised crossings-out and differences in recorded votes.

The petitioner further alleges that these alterations resulted in 9,755 votes being wrongfully allocated to the first respondent, Madina Nsereko.

His lawyers argue that certified Electoral Commission documents contradict explanations subsequently presented by the respondents.

These discrepancies have placed the respondents under further pressure to account for the contested figures and demonstrate how the final results were compiled.

Nyanzi Presents Alternative Vote Figures

Perhaps the most damaging argument concerns the original declaration of results forms obtained by Nyanzi’s polling agents.

His legal team argues that results from 208 polling stations show Nyanzi securing 15,996 votes against Madina’s 10,267.

The figures support his argument that he obtained more votes than the declared winner.

Although the original declaration forms were not certified, Nyanzi’s lawyers maintain that the Electoral Commission cannot selectively rely on certain polling station records while disregarding other documents that allegedly contradict its final tally.

The competing figures now raise a fundamental question about the accuracy of the Electoral Commission’s declaration.

Legal Arguments Put Declaration at Risk

Nyanzi’s petition relies on Section 80 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, which provides grounds for nullifying parliamentary elections where substantial non-compliance with electoral laws affected the results.

His lawyers have also cited previous judicial decisions, including Morgan and Others v Simpson, to support their arguments.

They contend that the alleged exclusion of voters, alteration of electoral documents, switching of results and conflicting records collectively demonstrate serious electoral irregularities.

If established before court, these allegations could have significant consequences for the declared outcome.

Madina Faces Crucial Questions as Case Deepens

The central strength of Nyanzi’s case lies in the combination of documentary evidence, reported admissions during cross-examination and the legal arguments presented by his lawyers.

The respondents now face critical questions over the missing results from 47 polling stations and the discrepancies identified in 53 contested stations.

More importantly, the alleged exclusion of results representing 32,860 registered voters raises questions about whether the final declaration accurately reflected the electorate’s choice.

For Madina, the petition presents a serious legal challenge to her declared victory.

Nyanzi’s submissions have outlined substantial grounds for questioning the outcome. His alternative vote figures also provide a central basis for his claim to have won the election.

The High Court will ultimately determine whether the evidence establishes sufficient grounds to overturn Madina’s declaration. Until then, the allegations remain subject to judicial determination.