Lawyers for Busiro North MP Paul Nsubuga have objected to his opponent’s attempt to submit new evidence in court accusing him of falsifying nomination documents.
Edgar Lubadde, who came in last with only 199 votes, contested Nsubuga’s election, claiming that the latter lacked the necessary academic credentials to run for Member of Parliament in the January 14 elections.
When the matter was called for hearing on Monday, Lubadde’s attorneys, Ezra Nyalwa and Christopher Kajwara, filed a supplemental affidavit in the petition, presenting a police report suggesting that Nsubuga had falsified documents he provided for nomination.
According to the report, Peter Mukalazi, the MP for Busiro North, was elected using academic papers for one Nsubuga Paul, who is still alive.
The actual Nsubuga Paul is the son of Joseph Musoke and Specioza Lunkuse, both inhabitants of Kakooge village in Wakiso district, and the same was born on January 19, 1985, and christened in the same church on October 1, 1986, according to the police report.
Nsubuga utilized fraudulent signatures for his candidacy as he ran for the Busiro North constituency seat in the recently ended elections, according to fresh evidence presented in court.
“According to a handwriting expert, Nsubuga faked the signatures of those who seconded his nomination. The signatures on the numerous names of the seconders were determined to be identical, indicating a forgery,” lawyer Christopher Kajwara told the court.
Lawyers are protesting.
However, Nsubuga’s lawyers, lead by Chrysostom Katumba, objected to the additional evidence, claiming that it was bringing new grounds to the case that could not be allowed under the law.
“A new ground of falsification of nomination documents is introduced by the additional affidavit. It also adds a police inquiry into Paul Nsubuga’s academic records, which we object to,” Katumba said in court.
While the petition is contesting Paul Nsubuga’s election without the required academic papers, the new evidence is about forgery of nomination forms, according to the lawyer, therefore the new evidence cannot be utilized.
He said that the identical proof should have been filed by April 19, 2021, rather than now.
The Electoral Commission, which is listed as the second respondent in the case, has also expressed its displeasure with the new material, which they claim is out of date.
“We request that those passages in the affidavit, and any others having the same meaning, be expunged,” Electoral Commission attorney Hamidu Lugoloobi told the court.
The EC counsel cited a recent Supreme Court judgment in Robert Kyagulanyi’s election petition contesting President Museveni’s victory, arguing that the Supreme Court tossed out Kyagulanyi’s evidence because it was filed late.
“The Supreme Court noted in its reasoning that the new material was out of date and could not be considered. “It’s the same issue here because the petitioner creates a new cause of action that is time barred,” the attorneys explained.
They urged that the court should dismiss the new evidence.
In response to Nsubuga’s attorneys, the petitioner informed the court that the evidence doesn’t add anything new to the case and that it was already included in the petition.
“This isn’t a new issue, since it was mentioned in the petition. Only the final police report following investigations is included in the affidavit, according to lawyer Christopher Kajwara.
Dr. Lady Justice Winfred Nabisinde postponed her decision in the case until October 26.