Lawyer and parliamentary aspirant Ivan Bwowe has criticised the High Court decision that dismissed his petition seeking to block National Unity Platform's Joel Ssenyonyi and six other candidates from contesting for the Nakawa Division West parliamentary seat.
Bwowe, has described the ruling as a “bad decision” that ignored key legal issues.
Earlier this week, the High Court upheld the Electoral Commission’s decision to nominate incumbent Nakawa West legislator, Ssenyonyi and the other candidates, rejecting Bwowe’s argument that their nominations were invalid.
Bwowe had petitioned court arguing that the candidates were nominated under “Nakawa West”, which he said is a non-existent constituency, instead of the legally gazetted “Nakawa Division West”.
He had asked court to nullify their nominations and declare him winner unopposed.
However, in a decision delivered on January 8, 2026, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the nominations.
But in a detailed submission and reflection shared on Friday, Bwowe disagreed with the court’s reasoning, insisting that the issue went beyond a simple clerical mistake.
“The judgment completely ignores the core legal argument that a statutory oath taken for a non-existent entity is void ab initio and cannot be amended post-nomination,” Bwowe wrote.
He argued that the court wrongly treated what he considers an illegality as a mere technicality, saying a non-existent constituency cannot be cured through administrative action.
Bwowe also accused the court of failing to properly consider his submissions, claiming it relied on evidence that had earlier been expunged and misrepresented the role and legal status of the control form.
“The court adopted a non-legal populist approach and neglected its appellate duty, therefore condoning illegalities,” he said.
He further faulted the court for, in his view, failing to address binding decisions of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court on non-existent entities, nomination requirements and the limits of Article 126(2)(e).
“The court avoided approximately 99 percent of the submissions advanced by the petitioner, including all principal arguments upon which the decision was grounded,” Bwowe stated.
He said the failure to engage with the key legal questions deprived the parties and the public of “the bare minimum of good jurisprudence”, adding that he plans to publish a detailed scholarly paper on the matter.
In his ruling, Justice Collins Acellam held that the use of “Nakawa West” instead of “Nakawa Division West” amounted to a minor clerical error that could be cured and did not invalidate the nominations.
“The filing by and nomination of the candidates for ‘Nakawa West’ was a curable irregularity,” the judge ruled, relying on Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, which emphasises substantive justice over technicalities.
Justice Acellam further accepted the Electoral Commission’s explanation that the error had been corrected through a control form, and agreed with the respondents that “Nakawa West” and “Nakawa Division West” are used interchangeably to refer to the same geographical area.
He also described Bwowe’s petition as “a desperate attempt to bypass the democratic process”, noting what he called an irony that Bwowe himself appeared on official documents as a candidate for “Nakawa West”.
Despite Bwowe's criticism, the High Court's ruling means Ssenyonyi and the other candidates remain validly nominated and will contest for the Nakawa Division West parliamentary seat ahead of next week's elections.