In 2021, Nantaba won as an Independent candidate, defeating six other candidates after garnering 47,725 votes. However, Nazigo Sub County Councilor Ritah Nabadda challenged her victory and petitioned the Mukono High Court, accusing Nantaba of voter bribery.
Mukono High Court Judge Olive Kazaarwe Mukwaya dismissed Nabadda’s petition on grounds of incompetence and lack of the supportive 500 signatures from registered voters in the district. Nabadda appealed this decision, resulting in a panel of three Court of Appeal Justices comprising Geoffrey Kiryabwire, Stephen Musota, and Christopher Gashirabake overturning the ruling and ordering a fresh retrial.
Nabadda sought an order to set aside the election, a new election to be held, and also costs to be awarded to her. However, Justice Acellam Collins ruled that the petition against Nantaba was not competent because it was not properly supported by the required 500 signatures of registered voters in Kayunga district.
Justice Acellam also dismissed the accusations of voter bribery and distribution of food and other items at Kambatani village, stating that Nabadda failed to prove that Nantaba committed any electoral offences.
Justice Acellam ruled that each party bears its own costs, stating that condemning such voters to costs would discourage them from contesting an election, even when they believe the elections were not conducted in compliance with the law. Nantaba’s lawyer, Ambrose Tebyasa, welcomed the ruling, but he was unhappy that Nantaba was not awarded costs, given that she had spent a lot of money during the hearing of the petition.
Phillip Kasinga, who represented Nabadda, said that they would respect the decision of the court.
Meanwhile, the Mukono High Court has requested more time to finalize the judgment in the election petition filed by Wilson Male of the National Unity Platform challenging the victory of Fred Kayondo of the Democratic Party as the Mukono South County Member of Parliament. In October 2021, Mukono High Court Judge Olive Kazarwe Mukwaya dismissed the petition on grounds that the Commissioner Of Oaths who signed the petition did not have a practicing certificate. However, three justices of the Court of Appeal overturned the decision and ordered a fresh hearing at the High Court.
0 Comments