Lawyers for Kawempe North MP Elias Nalukoola have refuted claims that he bribed or interfered with witnesses in the ongoing election petition filed by his rival, Faridah Nambi Kigongo of the ruling NRM party.

Appearing before Justice Bernard Namanya at the High Court’s Civil Division, Nalukoola’s lead counsel, Alex Luganda, argued that the affidavits being challenged do not amount to witness retractions and dismissed Nambi’s accusations as baseless and premature.

Click here to join our WhatsApp Group and Receive Daily News

He noted that one of the affidavits in question, from Ben Mukasa Lutale, doesn’t even relate to a witness for Nambi and therefore falls outside the scope of the rules she cited, particularly Rule 19 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations, which prohibits bribery, coercion, and witness tampering.

Luganda emphasized that no professional misconduct had occurred and pointed out that the law allows for cross-examination of all witnesses, even in cases where affidavit contradictions exist. He added that one of the individuals mentioned, George William Mawumbe, had stated he never submitted an affidavit and wasn’t in Kawempe on the election day.

He further argued that even if witnesses change their statements, this isn’t illegal and must be carefully examined by the court for authenticity. The defense dismissed Nambi’s objections as politically motivated, accusing her team of trying to overturn election results in court instead of at the polls.

Another defense lawyer, Remmy Bagyenda, said hostile witnesses are a normal part of legal proceedings and should not be dismissed early, while Samuel Muyizzi Mulindwa cited previous election petitions, including Amama Mbabazi’s case against President Museveni, to stress the importance of examining affidavit inconsistencies thoroughly.

However, Nambi’s lawyer, Ahmed Mukasa Kalule, countered that the Supreme Court hasn’t made a clear ruling on the legal implications of recanted witness statements. He urged the judge to rely on more recent decisions from the Court of Appeal, like the Moses Attan and Brandon Kintu cases, where contradictory affidavits were submitted.

Kalule also claimed that lawyers had helped prepare, translate, and explain the affidavits to witnesses, which supports allegations of tampering. He added that witness hostility becomes relevant during court cross-examination—not during affidavit preparation.

The judge has scheduled a ruling on the matter for May 9, when the court will determine whether there was any witness bribery as claimed.

Also Read: Three Children Mysteriously Disappear in Kabale