406 VOTES APART! Donna Turns Up Heat on Bebona as Nov. 9 Verdict Looms in Bundibugyo Woman MP Court Battle

Donna Kamuli Kapalaya (L) contested the election results of Josephine Babungi Bebona (R)

Donna Kamuli Kapalaya (L) contested the election results of Josephine Babungi Bebona (R)

FORT PORTAL — Bundibugyo District Woman MP Josephine Babungi Bebona is heading into a November 9 court verdict over her disputed election victory, with independent candidate Donna Kamuli Kapalaya challenging discrepancies in results that gave the incumbent a narrow 406-vote lead.

The High Court in Fort Portal, presided over by Lady Justice Joanita Gertrude Bushara, set November 9, 2026, to deliver its ruling after hearing submissions from Kapalaya and the respondents in the election petition.

Kapalaya is challenging the results of the January 15 general elections, in which Bebona, who contested on the National Resistance Movement (NRM) ticket, was declared winner of the Bundibugyo Woman MP race.

According to the declaration of results forms presented by the district returning officer, Bebona garnered 32,829 votes against Kapalaya’s 32,423, leaving a margin of just 406 votes.

But Kapalaya, through her lawyer Martin Masereka, told the court that discrepancies in the Electoral Commission’s tally sheets raised questions about how the final results were arrived at.

The petitioner pointed to two tally sheets dated January 19 and February 6, which reportedly carried different figures for Bebona.

According to Kapalaya, the January 19 tally sheet showed Bebona with 32,169 votes, while the February 6 version increased her tally to 32,829 — a difference of 660 votes.

The petitioner argues that the figures on the tally sheets contradict one another and those published in the Uganda Gazette, raising concerns about the accuracy of the final outcome.

Masereka submitted that the discrepancies warranted judicial scrutiny and asked the court to consider the evidence presented in determining the petition.

However, Bebona’s lawyer, Esau Isingoma, defended the results, arguing that the differences in the earlier tally sheet could have resulted from errors by Electoral Commission officials who were fatigued after handling results for four electoral contests.

Isingoma said officials were tallying results for the presidential election, the district woman MP race and parliamentary contests for the two counties in Bundibugyo District.

He told the court that the errors were subsequently corrected in the February 6 tally sheet, which he said matched the figures on the declaration of results forms.

During cross-examination, Bebona maintained that the declaration forms contained the correct figures and reflected her victory.

The Electoral Commission, the second respondent, was represented by lawyers led by Edwin Tabaro, who told the court that the commission’s response to the disputed results was contained in affidavits filed before the judge.

Speaking to Uganda Radio Network after the hearing, Kapalaya alleged that the election was affected by falsification, forged signatures and systematic manipulation of votes.

She claimed that 20 votes were added to Bebona’s tally at more than 69 polling stations and questioned why the Electoral Commission had produced tally sheets bearing different results.

Kapalaya said she had gone to court seeking justice and remained hopeful that the judge would deliver a fair ruling.

Bebona, meanwhile, expressed confidence that the court would consider the evidence and submissions from all parties before making its determination. She maintained that the declaration forms supported her victory despite the discrepancies in the tally sheets.

The November 9 ruling will determine the court’s decision on the petition challenging Bebona’s election. Until then, the allegations raised by Kapalaya remain disputed, with the court yet to make its determination.


GOT A HOT STORY? LET US KNOW!

Got breaking news, explosive secrets, or hard evidence?

Email us: redpeppertips@gmail.com

We accept tips, documents, videos, photos, and recordings—the more evidence you have, the better.

CONFIDENTIALITY IS OUR TOP PRIORITY. SOURCES ARE ALWAYS PROTECTED!

About Post Author