The ruling clears Tebandeke of the allegations raised in the election petition and brings the legal challenge to his victory to an end, subject to any further legal action.
The High Court in Mukono has upheld the election of Tebandeke Charles as the Member of Parliament for Bbaale County in Kayunga District, dismissing a petition filed by his rival, Kiiza Arthur, challenging the victory over alleged electoral offences and sectarian campaigning.
In a judgment delivered on November 11, 2026, Justice Philip W. Mwaka ruled that Kiiza had failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that Tebandeke made false statements about his character or engaged in sectarian campaigning during the 2026 parliamentary election campaigns.
The judge consequently dismissed Election Petition No. 06 of 2026 and ordered Kiiza to pay the costs of the suit, allowing Tebandeke to retain his parliamentary seat.
Tebandeke was declared winner after polling 17,507 votes against Kiiza’s 12,246, giving him a majority of 5,261 votes.
Mayinja Opens Up on HIV Stigma, Recalls Emotional Encounter With Young Fan
However, Kiiza challenged the outcome, accusing his rival of using campaign speeches, public gatherings and burial ceremonies to portray him negatively before voters.
Among the allegations, Kiiza claimed that Tebandeke repeatedly referred to him as the biblical Goliath because of his physical stature while portraying himself as David and other candidates as Pilates.
He further accused Tebandeke of making statements portraying him as a land grabber, a dishonest person and an outsider who had no legitimate roots in Bbaale County.
Kiiza argued that the alleged statements were intended to damage his reputation, influence voters against him and promote sectarian divisions based on his origins.
But Tebandeke denied the allegations, maintaining that his campaigns were based on his political manifesto and that he had never mentioned Kiiza or his opponents by name.
He told court that his references to David and Goliath were intended to illustrate the challenges facing constituents and the opportunities available to them, rather than target individual candidates.
In evaluating the evidence, Justice Mwaka identified significant inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses presented by Kiiza.
The judge noted that witnesses who claimed to have attended the same campaign events and burial ceremonies gave differing accounts of what Tebandeke had allegedly said.
In some instances, witnesses attributed different statements to the MP, while others who were reportedly present did not recall hearing the alleged remarks.
The court also noted that Kiiza had admitted he did not personally hear most of the statements he attributed to Tebandeke, relying instead on accounts from witnesses.
The judge further declined to rely on video recordings presented by the petitioner, including TikTok videos and recordings allegedly captured during a November 15, 2025 campaign rally.
One of the recordings was challenged over inconsistencies in the testimony of the person who claimed to have captured it, raising questions about its authenticity and chain of custody.
Justice Mwaka observed that where words are attributed to an individual in legal proceedings, witnesses should, where possible, provide the exact statements rather than rely on impressions, interpretations and paraphrased accounts.
Finance Minister Musasizi Moves to Stop PAYE Deductions on Councillors’ Allowances
The judge said the variations in the witnesses’ accounts made it difficult to establish precisely what Tebandeke had allegedly said and whether the statements amounted to electoral offences.
The court consequently found that Kiiza had not met the required standard of proof to establish offences of making false statements concerning a candidate’s character under Section 92(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act or conducting a sectarian campaign under Section 41(1).
Justice Mwaka, however, noted that Kiiza remained at liberty to pursue any other civil or criminal complaints he might have against the parties involved before the appropriate authorities.
The ruling clears Tebandeke of the allegations raised in the election petition and brings the legal challenge to his victory to an end, subject to any further legal action.