High Court judge Musa Sekaana has ruled in favour of President Yoweri Kaguta Tibuhaburwa Museveni’s younger brother Godfrey Kaguta Aine Sodo in the Mawogola North National Resistance Movement (NRM) election case involving foreign affairs minister Sam Kutesa’s daughter Shartis Nayebare Musherure.
Although Sembabule NRM district returning officer William Katokoozi declared Sodo winner with 17,343 votes against Musherure’s 16,104 votes on September 30, the latter rejected results of the election.
Musherure petitioned the Enoch Barata NRM party elections dispute tribunal to nullify Sodo’s victory on groups that the election had been marred by irregularities.
But the Barata tribunal failed to decide on the matter. Barata asked the NRM’s Central Executive Committee (CEC) to decide on the dispute.
CEC also tasked national vice chairperson Al-Hajj Moses Kigongo to handle the matter.
Kigongo ruled that the party should not front any candidate in the election but the two be allowed to run as independent candidates.
But Museveni’s brother rushed to court to challenge Kigongo’s ruling, insisting he had won and should be the NRM’s flagbearer.
Now, Justice Sekaana has ruled that indeed the party flouted its election regulations and provisions of the constitution when it failed to come up with a winner and nullified his election to declare both him and his opponent independents.
The judge further faulted the NRM elections tribunal chairperson Barata for issuing a judgement yet it was Isaac Kyagaba and Ahmed Kasule Musoke that had handled the petition.
“The facts as presented clearly indicate that the person who made the decision as stated in the affidavit indeed never heard that the parties,” Sekaana noted.
“This is a total breach of the duty to act fairly and thus puts the said decision in question for being illegal and in breach of rules for fairness as enshrined in both in the national constitution and the NRM constitution.”
Although Sekaana ruled in Sodo’s favour, he didn’t declare his the Mawogola North NRM flagbearer. He urged the party to reconsider its decision.
“Court cannot substitute an alternative decision-maker and that in many circumstances; the decision-maker will be free to reconsider the matter and make a fresh the decision provided that in so doing, he or she doesn’t repeat the error or make any further reviewable errors,” he ruled.
