Justice Himbaza found that the petitioner and his witnesses had sufficiently explained the background of the recordings and how the videos were obtained and preserved.
The High Court in Mukono has dismissed objections raised by Mukono County North MP Abdallah Kiwanuka against the admission of electronic evidence, including a mobile money statement and three videos showing his campaign rallies, in an election petition challenging his victory.
In a ruling delivered on Monday, November 9, 2026, the court’s acting judge, Justice Godfrey Himbaza, overruled all objections raised by Kiwanuka’s lawyers and allowed the evidence presented by petitioner Ronald Kibuule to be admitted as exhibits.
The evidence includes an Airtel mobile money statement relating to a transaction in which Kiwanuka allegedly sent sh100,000 to Sadiq Wabbi Ssenyonjo on December 19, 2025, and three videos showing campaign rallies at Ddundu, Wanjeyo and Namawojjolo.
Kibuule, who is challenging the outcome of the January 15, 2026 parliamentary elections for Mukono County North, alleges that Kiwanuka bribed Wabbi with sh100,000 to refrain from voting for him.
However, Kiwanuka, in his response to the petition, acknowledged sending the money but maintained that it was intended to facilitate repairs to his campaign tent, which he said had been under Wabbi’s custody and management for four years.
In considering the objection to the mobile money statement, Justice Himbaza observed that the transaction itself was not disputed by Kiwanuka, leaving the purpose for which the money was sent as the substantive issue for determination.
The judge also rejected arguments by Kiwanuka’s lawyers that the statement could only be introduced through an Airtel official, noting that the person to whom the statement was addressed had the capacity to tender it in court.
Justice Himbaza further observed that the statement bore the telecommunications company’s stamp and that the transaction in question was reflected in it.
He ruled that the fact that the statement did not cover the entire period up to February 2026 did not make it inadmissible, provided the particular transaction under consideration was captured.
The court also dismissed objections relating to third-party personal information contained in the statement, noting that its use in court for the purpose for which it was obtained did not, by itself, amount to a violation of data protection laws.
NUP’s Nalubowa Names Ssenyonyi, Nambooze in Alleged Museveni Meeting
On the video evidence, Kiwanuka’s lawyers had argued that the recordings were not in their original form, had not been properly authenticated and could have been manipulated, particularly because some appeared to have been downloaded from TikTok.
They also questioned the chain of custody of the recordings, arguing that Kibuule had obtained some of the videos from third parties and had not sufficiently demonstrated how their authenticity and integrity had been maintained.
However, Kibuule’s lawyers maintained that the petitioner and his witnesses had laid sufficient foundation for the videos through their affidavits and testimony.
The court heard that Tumwesigye Rajab attended the Ddundu rally, Arafat Matovu was present at Namawojjolo, while Tebuseeke Mulushid attended and recorded the Wanjeyo rally before his phone was stolen.
Justice Himbaza found that the petitioner and his witnesses had sufficiently explained the background of the recordings and how the videos were obtained and preserved.
The judge distinguished the case from an earlier ruling involving Daisy Ssonko Nabatanzi and Betty Nambooze Bakireke, in which video evidence was rejected because the petitioner had failed to establish how the recordings were obtained and their authenticity maintained.
The court held that electronic evidence does not necessarily have to be presented in its original form to be admissible under the Electronic Transactions Act.
Village Innovator Builds Homemade ‘Chopper Fighter Jet’, Crashes During Test Flight
Justice Himbaza, however, clarified that admitting the evidence did not automatically mean that the court had accepted the allegations contained in it as proven.
He noted that the respondents retained the right to challenge the authenticity, reliability and contents of the evidence through cross-examination of the petitioner and his witnesses.
If successfully challenged, the court may disregard the evidence or attach less weight to it when delivering the final judgment.
The judge consequently admitted the Airtel mobile money statement as prosecution exhibit 14, while the Ddundu, Wanjeyo and Namawojjolo rally videos were admitted as exhibits 15, 16 and 17, respectively, alongside their transcriptions and translations.
The court ordered that costs would be in the cause.
Kibuule filed the election petition seeking to overturn Kiwanuka’s victory and have a fresh election conducted in Mukono County North.
The ruling, dated November 9, 2026, deals with the admissibility of evidence and does not determine the merits of the election petition or establish whether the alleged bribery and other electoral offences occurred.