The High Court in Patong has dismissed an application by former Aruu County legislator Odonga Otto seeking the recusal of the presiding judge from hearing and determining his election petition.
In a ruling delivered on September 28, 2026, Acting Judge Fatuma Nanziri Bwanika rejected Otto’s allegations of bias, procedural irregularities and bribery, finding that they did not establish actual or apparent bias.
Otto had asked the judge to step aside from Election Petition No. 001 of 2026, arising from the January 15, 2026 parliamentary elections for Aruu County in Pader District.
His application cited three major grounds, including alleged alteration of the Joint Scheduling Memorandum, interference with his lawyers during cross-examination and what he described as harsh treatment in court. He also challenged the admission of testimony from the second respondent through Zoom and raised allegations of bribery.
Justice Bwanika noted that the application was filed after the trial had concluded on September 21. She said Otto had participated in the scheduling conference and the hearing, where he was represented by two lawyers, but neither he nor his lawyers had raised concerns about the conduct of the proceedings at the time.
The judge said judgment had already been scheduled for November 5, 2026, after the parties were directed to file written submissions.
On the allegation that the court had altered the Joint Scheduling Memorandum, the judge said the record showed that the parties and their lawyers had agreed to revise the memorandum to include an issue concerning whether alleged non-compliance with electoral laws had substantially affected the election results.
She said the revised memorandum was signed by all the lawyers and filed on the court record, with no objection raised by Otto during the proceedings.
The judge further rejected Otto’s complaint about interventions during cross-examination, explaining that the court has a duty to control and direct proceedings, particularly election petitions that are required by law to be disposed of expeditiously.
She found that the interventions were aimed at keeping the cross-examination within the identified affidavits, clarifying responses and managing the pace of the hearing, rather than demonstrating bias against the petitioner.
On the complaint that Otto had been addressed harshly after appearing at the bar without full robes, the judge said courtroom decorum requires advocates appearing before a judge to be appropriately dressed and robed.
She said Otto complied when asked to relocate from the bar and did not raise any objection or seek permission to remain there.
The judge also dismissed the challenge to the use of Zoom to hear the returning officer. She said virtual proceedings are permitted under the Judicature (Electronic Filing, Service and Virtual Proceedings) Rules, 2025.
According to the ruling, counsel for the parties had agreed to the virtual hearing after the returning officer was unable to physically attend court because he was attending to his sick child. The judge said the rules do not require medical evidence or loudspeakers in court as preconditions for virtual testimony.
On the bribery allegation, Justice Bwanika said such claims against a judicial officer are serious and require credible evidence linking the alleged conduct to the judge.
She found that the material before court did not establish such a connection, noting that the alleged statements were attributed to parties to the case and not to the court.
The judge ultimately ruled that none of the grounds, whether considered individually or collectively, established actual or apparent bias or created a real possibility of bias in the eyes of a fair-minded and informed observer.
She therefore dismissed the application, declined to recuse herself and said she would proceed with consideration of the parties’ submissions before delivering the judgment on November 5, 2026, as scheduled.
