By Hillary Keingana
BUHWEJU/BUSHENYI; The High Court in Bushenyi has kicked out all electronic evidence presented by Phillip Muhamya in his petition challenging the Buhweju District Chairperson election results.
Delivering her ruling on a preliminary objection on 29th September, 2026, Lady Justice Mary Ikit ruled that audio recordings, videos and photographs attached to the affidavits of Muhamya and his witnesses against Deogratious Atuhaire Omuhatizi did not meet the legal requirements for authenticity, integrity and proper handling of electronic evidence.
The petition, Election Petition No. 001 of 2026, arises from the District Chairperson election held on 22nd January, 2026 in which Atuhaire was declared winner with 22,231 votes against Muhamya’s 19,754 votes. The Electoral Commission is the second respondent.
The evidence in question was listed as Annexures No. 57-63 on the Joint Scheduling Memorandum. It included, photographs of two election officers, Mr Baker Mucunguzi and Ms Oliver Amutuhaire being arrested. Videos of the RDC Sheema being arrested, police officer Katungi chasing away voters, assault of agent Tuhise Jeniva, and multiple voting at Kabuga and Katagata. There were also audios and videos of Atuhaire allegedly dishing out Shs. 500,000 at a rally, threatening not to work on roads in Rubengye, and defaming the petitioner.
All were recorded on mobile phones Techno Spark 20, Techno Spark 8, Itel A06, Techno Pop 7, Samsung Galaxy A04 and later transferred to computers and Compact Discs and printed at Soft Codes, Easy View Building, Mbarara.
Justice Ikit agreed with counsel for the 1st Respondent, Hon. Cohen Amanya Kyampene and counsel for the 2nd Respondent, Mr. Abel Mandela Nkuuda, who argued that the petitioner failed to attach a Certificate of Extraction contrary to Section 65(b) of the Evidence Act, Cap. 8 and did not comply with Section 6 of the Electronic Transactions Act, Cap. 99.
Justice Ikit noted that, “It is undisputed fact that the persons who transferred, transmitted and copied the various audios, videos and photographs… did not swear affidavits to that effect. The deponents counsel for the petitioner is insisting will be availed for cross-examination are the persons who made the recordings but not persons who extracted the said recordings from the respective phones using a computer and made copies in Compact Discs”.
The Judge cited Court of Appeal decisions in Tumuheirwe Fred Turyamuhweza Vs. Muhwezi Jim Katugugu (2021) and Mpeirwe Moses Kashaija Vs. Stephen Kangwagye Rwakanuma (2022) which held that absence of the person who transferred data from phones to CD amounts to a break in the chain of handling electronic evidence.
She also cited Regulation 3 and 4 of the Electronic Transactions Regulations which require proof that the computer used is reliable, has safeguards, and that the record has remained complete and unaltered.
Lady Justice Ikit further noted that with the emergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI), electronic evidence can easily be created, tampered with or doctored, and since the persons who recorded are all agents of the petitioner, court could not be sure of its credibility.
The court also found that most audio and video recordings were not in English, the official language of court under Section 88 of the Civil Procedure Act and no affidavits were filed by persons who translated them.
“Seen that way, Court finds that the petitioner has thus failed to discharge the burden of proving the authenticity, integrity and accuracy of the audio and video recordings. For that reason, I find that the electronic evidence attached as annexures, are inadmissible for failure to comply with the strict requirements of the law on admissibility of such evidence. They are as such expunged from the Court record. I so Order,” Justice Ikit ruled.
The ruling dated at Bushenyi this 29th day of September, 2026, is a big blow to Muhamya, who had told court he had 30 witnesses and video evidence to prove voter bribery, disenfranchisement and forgery of DR Forms at Kabuga and Katagata.
Counsel for the petitioner in the Buhweju LC5 election petition says their case is built on evidence from the Electoral Commission itself, which shows irregularities in ballot accounting.
Speaking exclusively after his client Phillip Muhamya was cross-examined for 9 hours today at Bushenyi High Court, Counsel Andrew Byamukama said the numbers don’t add up.
“Our case is basically on the evidence as provided from the Electoral Commission in some cases for example the DR forms, the evidence that was produced on the ballot papers exceed what was recorded when it comes to used ballots. We have a total of used and unused of 500 and that cannot happen,” Byamukama said.
Byamukama said the DR Forms from Kabuga and Katagata polling stations are central to their claim of disenfranchisement and faked agent signatures.
Muhamya was today grilled from 10am to 7pm by Atuhaire’s lawyer Counsel Cohen Amanya Kyampene on whether DR Forms were genuinely consented to.
On way forward, Byamukama revealed court has directed them to bring witnesses for identification, “We had said we had over 30 witnesses but the court has said that we bring them for identification and we sort out those to be cross examined and those not to be cross examined and according to how things are going, if we are to cross examine the whole day then we shall see how to do that but its up to counsel but for us that is our evidence of witnesses which we shall go through tomorrow for identification and then provide the evidence”. End
