By Moses Andama
www.mknewslink.com
In Masindi—-
The petitioner challenging the outcome of the Buruli Constituency election, Julius Mugisa, has told the Masindi High Court that he is ready to present 160 witnesses, audio recordings, video footage and photographs in support of his petition.
The hearing of the election petition is expected to resume on Monday, September 21, 2026, when Mugisa is expected to begin presenting evidence in his challenge against the disputed election results.
Mugisa told court that he decided to petition after becoming dissatisfied with the conduct and outcome of the election, alleging that some votes were confiscated during the electoral process.
“I reported the case because I was not satisfied with the election,” Mugisa told court.
He said he intends to rely on witness testimony as well as audio, video and photographic evidence to support his allegations.
“I have 160 witnesses to present to court,” Mugisa said.
He added: “I have audio, video and pictures,” which he intends to rely on during the hearing.
The petitioner says the evidence will help court establish the circumstances surrounding the disputed election. However, the allegations remain contested and will have to be tested through the judicial process.
The respondents will have an opportunity to respond to the petitioner’s evidence, cross-examine his witnesses and challenge the materials presented before court.
Lawyer’s role challenged
During the preliminary proceedings, lawyers representing Mugisa from Mujulizi & Mwesigye Advocates also challenged the continued representation of the first respondent, Aled. Akuguzibwe, by his lawyer, Simon Kasangaki.
The petitioner’s legal team raised concerns over a potential conflict arising from information contained in one of the affidavits filed in the case.
According to Mugisa’s lawyers, the contents of the affidavit created a possibility that Kasangaki could be called as a witness in the matter because of information attributed to him or within his knowledge.
The lawyers argued that allowing an advocate who could potentially become a witness to continue representing a party could raise professional and ethical concerns.
They asked the court to consider removing Kasangaki from representing the first respondent, arguing that his potential role as a witness could conflict with his role as counsel.
Judge dismisses request
However, Masindi High Court Judge, Justice Kasibayo, dismissed the application seeking to have Kasangaki removed from representing Akuguzibwe.
The decision means Kasangaki will continue representing Akuguzibwe as his advocate in the election petition.
The question of whether the lawyer could eventually be required to give evidence remains separate from his current role as counsel and would depend on the circumstances that arise during the hearing.
The dispute over the lawyer’s role was among the preliminary issues considered by court before the substantive hearing of the petition.
With the matter settled, attention now turns to the evidence Mugisa intends to present when the hearing resumes.
160 witnesses expected
Mugisa’s indication that he has 160 witnesses is likely to make the hearing a significant undertaking, depending on the number of witnesses ultimately called and the issues they are expected to address.
The witnesses are expected to give testimony concerning the circumstances surrounding the disputed election, while the petitioner also intends to rely on documentary and audiovisual evidence.
The audio recordings, videos and photographs could form an important part of the petitioner’s case, although their admissibility, relevance and evidential value will ultimately be determined by the court.
The respondents will also have an opportunity to challenge the evidence and cross-examine witnesses presented by the petitioner.
For Mugisa, the resumption of the hearing provides an opportunity to place before court the evidence he says supports his challenge to the election results.
The Masindi High Court has fixed Monday, September 21, 2026, for the hearing to resume.
The outcome of the petition will depend on the evidence presented by both sides and the court’s eventual determination of the issues raised in the case.