ustice Collins Acellam has today dismissed a high-profile petition challenging the nomination of candidates for Nakawa Division West, ruling that a naming error on nomination papers was just a clerical slip and didn’t stop the Electoral Commission (EC) from acting lawfully. The case came after Bwowe Ivan, the petitioner, claimed that seven candidates, including Happy […]
ustice Collins Acellam has today dismissed a high-profile petition challenging the nomination of candidates for Nakawa Division West, ruling that a naming error on nomination papers was just a clerical slip and didn’t stop the Electoral Commission (EC) from acting lawfully.
The case came after Bwowe Ivan, the petitioner, claimed that seven candidates, including Happy Nasasira, Burora Herbert Anderson, Okuye Felix Ephraim, Okumu Vincent Norbert, Joel Ssenyonyi, Kyambadde Wilberforce, and Rwamiti Apuuli, were nominated for a “non-existent constituency” called Nakawa West. Bwowe argued that the EC had no power to change the name on their nomination papers, and that using other documents, posters, campaign programs, and the so-called Control Form to validate their nominations was illegal.
But Justice Acellam, after carefully going through the documents and the law, said otherwise. The judge acknowledged the misnaming but ruled that it did not nullify the nominations, because all evidence showed that the candidates were intended to contest in Nakawa Division West, the legitimate constituency.
What the Judge Actually Said
The names “Nakawa West” and “Nakawa Division West” were used interchangeably in campaign materials and even by the petitioner at times. The court said:
“The use of the name of a constituency interchangeably by the Respondents to mean one and the same electoral area was not fatal.”
The Control Form, signed by all candidates and the Returning Officer, correctly listed the constituency as Nakawa Division West, confirming the intended electoral area. The judge called this form “central to the nomination process”.
Any clerical misnomer in the nomination papers could be legally corrected, citing previous cases and Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, which allows minor errors that don’t affect substantive rights to be cured.
The EC’s reliance on posters, campaign programs, and the Control Form was lawful. The court said these materials helped confirm that the candidates intended to contest in the right area, and therefore the EC acted within its powers.
The petitioner’s claim that the EC relied on extraneous materials was rejected. Justice Acellam stated:
“The Commission was legally justified in upholding the Returning Officer’s decision because the intention of all candidates and the electoral area were correctly captured in the Control Form, which is a central document in the nomination process.”
The court also dismissed preliminary objections raised by the EC about procedural compliance, ruling that the EC affidavit and supporting documents were valid.
Justice Acellam didn’t just dismiss the petition he walked through the laws and clauses that supported his decision for instance Article 63 of the Constitution outlines the Electoral Commission’s mandate.
Sections 71 and 75 of the Electoral Commission Act give the EC powers to oversee nominations and elections.
Rules 4 and 5 of the Parliamentary Elections (Appeals to the High Court from Commission) Rules allow the court to correct procedural or clerical mistakes in the nomination process.
The judge also referred to past precedents, like Toolit Aketcho vs Oulonya Ideob Lokori & Anor, which held that clerical errors in election documents are not fatal if they don’t affect the substance of the nomination.
Clerical errors don’t cancel elections. Even if the wrong name appears on a nomination paper, it can be corrected if intention and constituency are clear.
The EC has the authority to rely on central administrative records like the Control Form to validate nominations.
Campaign materials and communications showing the intended constituency can help cure minor errors.
Only the petitioner, Bwowe Ivan, remains validly nominated for Nakawa Division West alone, according to the legal documents.
Justice Acellam concluded:
“The appeal is devoid of merit. The nomination of the 2nd to 8th Respondents by the Electoral Commission is lawful and valid. The clerical error in the individual nomination papers was cured by the Control Form and other submissions confirming the correct constituency. The petitioner is not entitled to any of the remedies sought.”
For the average voter or candidate, the ruling sends a clear message: the substance of your nomination, who you are and where you intend to contest matters more than small clerical errors.
