Lawyers representing Busiro North MP Paul Nsubuga have protested a move by his opponent to produce to court new evidence pinning him on forging nomination papers.
Edgar Lubadde who came last with only 199 votes challenged Nsubuga’s election saying the latter didn’t have the required academic documents to contest for the position of a Member of Parliament in the January 14 polls.
On Monday, when the case came up for hearing, Lubadde’s lawyers including Ezra Nyalwa and Christopher Kajwara filed a supplementary affidavit in the petition in which they presented a police report indicating that that Nsubuga had forged documents he presented for nomination.
According to the report, the person elected as Busiro North MP is Peter Mukalazi who used academic documents for one Nsubuga Paul who is also alive.
“It was established from church records that that the real Nsubuga Paul is the son of Joseph Musoke and Specioza Lunkuse, both residents of Kakooge village in Wakiso district and the same was born on January,19, 1985 and baptized in the same church on October, 1, 1986 ,”the police report says.
The new evidence produced in court also indicated that Nsubuga had used forged signatures for his nomination as he stood for Busiro North constituency position in the just concluded elections.
“A handwriting expert found out that he Nsubuga had forged signatures of the people who seconded his nomination. It was found out that the signatures on the various names of the seconders were similar which was a forgery,” lawyer Christopher Kajwara told court.
However, Nsubuga’s lawyer led by Chrysostom Katumba protested against the new evidence that they said was introducing new grounds to the case which in law can’t be allowed.
“The supplementary affidavit introduces a new ground of forgery of nomination papers. It also introduces an aspect of police investigation into the academic documents of Paul Nsubuga which we object to,” Katumba told court.
The lawyer said whereas the petition is challenging Paul Nsubuga’s election without having the mandatory academic documents, the new evidence is talking about forgery of nomination documents, noting that the new evidence cant be allowed to be used.
He said that the same evidence should have been filed by April,19,2021 and not now.
The Electoral Commission which is also listed as the second respondent in the petition also protested against the new evidence that they said is out of time.
“We pray that those paragraphs in the affidavit and any others with the same implication be expunged ,”Hamidu Lugoloobi who was representing Electoral Commission told court.
Quoting a recent ruling in the election petition by Robert Kyagulanyi challenging President Museveni’s election, the EC lawyer reasoned with the Supreme Court that threw out Kyagulanyi’s evidence which was filed late.
“In its reasoning, the Supreme Court observed that the new evidence was time bad and could not be entertained. It is the same thing here as the petitioner introduces a new cause of action which is time bad,” the lawyers said.
They insisted that the new evidence should be thrown out by the court.
However, responding to Nsubuga’s lawyers, the petitioner told court that the evidence doesn’t introduce new matters to the case but rather had been mentioned earlier in the petition.
“This is not a new matter because it was talked about in the petition. In the affidavit is only the final police report after investigations were concluded,” lawyer Christopher Kajwara argued.
Dr. Lady Justice Winfred Nabisinde adjourned the case to October 26 to give her ruling in the matter.