Anthony Natif, a pharmacist and public affairs commentator, has challenged the legal coherence of recent judgments by High Court Justice Bernard Namanya. According to the Nile Post, Natif contends that the judge employed distinct evidential thresholds when evaluating whether procedural flaws materially influenced the outcomes of two parliamentary contests. This critique emerged after a ruling that validated the victory of Justine Nameere in the Masaka City Woman MP race, despite earlier findings of procedural breaches.
Natif’s analysis contrasts the recent Masaka decision with a May 2025 ruling that overturned Elias Nalukoola’s win in Kawempe North. In the earlier case, the court invalidated the result because the Electoral Commission failed to tally votes from fourteen polling stations affected by violence. Those stations contained 16,640 registered voters, a number that exceeded Nalukoola’s victory margin. Natif argues that the judge prioritized the potential impact of these uncounted registered voters over the actual ballots cast, a method he believes should have been applied uniformly in the Masaka case.
The Masaka dispute stemmed from the January 15, 2026 general election, where a recount reversed the initial tally in favor of Nameere. In his October 21, 2026 decision, Justice Namanya acknowledged that nine polling stations were excluded due to damaged ballot boxes and missing paperwork. Although these stations held 3,886 registered voters, the judge concentrated on the 1,353 ballots actually cast and omitted from the final count. The ruling concluded that even if all 1,353 omitted ballots were added to the challenger’s total, Nameere would still retain her lead by 973 votes.
Natif points out that the 3,886 registered voters in the excluded stations surpassed Nameere’s 2,326-vote margin. He questions why the court did not give greater weight to this broader pool of affected voters, as it had done in the Nalukoola matter. The Nile Post notes that Natif’s commentary highlights the difficulty petitioners face in proving that procedural errors substantially altered results. His argument suggests that the court may have raised the bar for overturning an election in the Masaka case compared to the earlier Kawempe North decision.