His comments followed a judgment delivered on October 21, 2026, by High Court judge Bernard Namanya, dismissing an election petition filed by Nalubowa against Nameere’s victory.
Former Makerere University vice-chancellor Prof. Venansius Baryamureeba has criticised the High Court ruling upholding Justine Nameere’s election as Masaka City Woman Member of Parliament, arguing that the decision undermines the rule of law and public confidence in the courts.
In a statement shared on X, Baryamureeba questioned why the court upheld Nameere’s victory despite findings of irregularities in the vote recount that overturned the Electoral Commission’s initial declaration of Rose Nalubowa as the winner.
“Explain this to me like a P1 student,” Baryamureeba wrote, arguing that if the recount did not comply with electoral law, the court should not have relied on its results to determine the winner.
He maintained that the Electoral Commission’s original declaration in favour of Nalubowa should have been reinstated rather than applying the legal test of whether the irregularities substantially affected the election outcome.
Baryamureeba said the ruling risked creating the impression that citizens could not obtain justice through the courts, warning that such perceptions could encourage people to take matters into their own hands.
Gen. Muhoozi Forgives Former CMI Boss Birungi, Says He Will Be Released Soon
“The rule of law must prevail,” he said, adding that the judgment should be condemned by peace-loving Ugandans. He also clarified that he was not a supporter of the opposition National Unity Platform (NUP).
His comments followed a judgment delivered on October 21, 2026, by High Court judge Bernard Namanya, dismissing an election petition filed by Nalubowa against Nameere’s victory.
How the dispute started
The dispute arose from the January 15, 2026, parliamentary elections, in which the Electoral Commission initially declared Nalubowa, the NUP candidate, the winner with 25,443 votes against Nameere’s 20,324.
Nameere, who contested on the National Resistance Movement (NRM) ticket and serves as State Minister for Local Government, challenged the declaration, arguing that results from several polling stations had been omitted.
A recount subsequently ordered by the Masaka Chief Magistrate’s Court reversed the outcome, awarding Nameere 25,502 votes and Nalubowa 23,176 votes, giving Nameere a lead of 2,326 votes. She was subsequently declared the winner and gazetted.
Nalubowa petitioned the High Court, challenging the recount and seeking to have Nameere’s election overturned. She raised concerns over the handling of electoral materials, compromised ballot boxes, the use of photocopied declaration-of-results forms and the exclusion of polling stations.
In his judgment, Justice Namanya acknowledged irregularities and non-compliance with electoral law but ruled that Nalubowa had not proved that the problems substantially affected the final result.
The court considered nine excluded polling stations with 1,353 actual votes cast. It reasoned that even if all those votes were added to Nalubowa’s recount tally of 23,176, her total would rise to 24,529, still 973 votes short of Nameere’s 25,502.
The judge consequently dismissed Nalubowa’s petition and ordered her to pay the costs of the case.
Debate over the rule of law
The ruling has brought renewed attention to the relationship between compliance with electoral procedures and the legal requirement to prove that irregularities substantially affected an election before its results can be nullified.
While the court maintained that the irregularities did not justify overturning the outcome without sufficient proof of their effect, Baryamureeba questioned the fairness of relying on a recount whose legality had been challenged.
His criticism centres on whether an election result should stand when the process used to establish it is found to have involved breaches of electoral law.
The judgment leaves Nameere’s victory intact, while Baryamureeba’s statement adds to public debate over electoral justice, judicial accountability and confidence in Uganda’s legal institutions.