The High Court has today nullified the election of Luyimbazi Elias Nalukoola as Member of Parliament for Kawempe North, just under three months since he was sworn in on March 26, 2025.
The decision, delivered by Justice Bernard Namanya, cited non-compliance with electoral laws during the controversial by-election held on March 13.
Nalukoola’s short-lived tenure in Parliament has been the subject of intense public debate, particularly after the Speaker of Parliament directed Clerk to Parliament Adolf Mwesigye to extend full benefits to him, including the standard Shs 200 million allocation for the purchase of a vehicle.
The directive sparked widespread criticism on social media, with many Ugandans questioning the rationale of disbursing such hefty benefits given the proximity to the 2026 general elections, now less than eight months away.
Despite the court's ruling, legal experts affirm that Nalukoola is under no obligation to return the Shs 200 million or any other emoluments received during his time in office.
Central to this conclusion is the application of the de facto officer doctrine, a legal principle upheld in Ugandan courts and across many Commonwealth jurisdictions.
The doctrine holds that actions undertaken by an individual acting in good faith in a public office regardless of later findings about the legality of their election or appointment remain valid.
Since Nalukoola was duly declared elected by the Electoral Commission and served without malice, the benefits he received are not considered unlawfully acquired.
The Parliamentary Elections Act, under which his election was nullified, is notably silent on the issue of returning salaries or allowances. Sections 80 through 83 provide for the setting aside of improperly conducted elections but do not impose penalties requiring restitution of funds unless fraud or criminality is proven.
Further reinforcing this position are the Government Standing Orders and the principle of parliamentary privilege. Once an individual is sworn in as an MP, they are entitled to full benefits of the office, including a salary, allowances, and an official vehicle.
These privileges are only revoked once the seat is declared vacant and are not applied retroactively.
This legal and procedural interpretation is not without precedent. In previous cases involving MPs such as Peter Sematimba, Wilfred Nuwagaba, and Eddie Kwizera whose elections were also nullified none were required to return the benefits accrued during their time in office.
The consistent application of this practice lends weight to the argument that benefits earned under the color of law remain with the officeholder, even after nullification.
Beyond statutory and judicial guidance, constitutional safeguards also come into play. Articles 42 and 44 of the Ugandan Constitution guarantee fair administrative treatment and prohibit retroactive penalisation without legal foundation. Any attempt to force repayment in the absence of specific legislation could be deemed unconstitutional.
As the dust settles on Nalukoola’s brief stint in Parliament, the conversation now turns to the implications of this ruling on electoral justice and administrative accountability. For now, however, it is clear that while his seat may be gone, the car and its corresponding allowance will stay with him.