Expired Certificate Costs Walukaga Parliamentary Bid as Court Backs EC

The High Court has dismissed an election petition filed by Mr. Walukaga Mathias, affirming the Electoral Commission’s decision to cancel his nomination as a parliamentary candidate for Busiro East Constituency over lack of valid academic qualifications.

In a judgment delivered on December 21, 2025, Acting High Court Judge Simon Peter M. Kinobe ruled that Mr. Walukaga did not meet the minimum academic requirements required to contest for Parliament at the time of nomination, as his Mature Age/Aptitude Test Certificate had expired before nomination day.

The ruling brings to a close Election Petition Appeal No. 10 of 2025, which arose from a decision by the Electoral Commission on November 25, 2025, cancelling Mr. Walukaga’s nomination following a successful complaint by a registered voter.

Background of the dispute

Mr. Walukaga was nominated on October 23, 2025, to contest for the Busiro East parliamentary seat. At the time of nomination, he relied on two academic documents:

A Mature Age/Aptitude Test Certificate issued by the Islamic University in Uganda (IUIU) on June 12, 2023; and

A Certificate of Equivalence issued by the National Council for Higher Education (NCHE) on June 11, 2025, equating the qualification to Advanced Level (A-Level) standard.

However, the Mature Age certificate expressly stated that it was valid for two years, expiring on June 12, 2025—more than four months before the nomination date.

On November 6, 2025, a registered voter in Busiro East, Mr. Lubowa John Kilimiro, petitioned the Electoral Commission, arguing that an expired certificate could not lawfully support a nomination under the Parliamentary Elections Act. After conducting hearings in November, the Electoral Commission upheld the complaint and cancelled Mr. Walukaga’s nomination, prompting him to appeal to the High Court.

Court’s determination

In his judgment, Justice Kinobe addressed four key issues, including the jurisdiction of the Electoral Commission, the legality of its decision, and whether Mr. Walukaga possessed the minimum academic qualifications required to contest for Parliament.

The court found that the Electoral Commission acted within its constitutional mandate under Article 61(1)(f) of the Constitution, which empowers it to hear and determine disputes arising from nominations.

Justice Kinobe rejected Mr. Walukaga’s argument that the Commission had usurped the role of the NCHE, noting that the Commission did not attempt to equate academic qualifications. Instead, it lawfully assessed whether the documents presented were valid and subsisting at the time of nomination.

The court further dismissed Mr. Walukaga’s contention that his enrollment at St. Lawrence University in 2023 preserved the validity of his Mature Age certificate beyond its expiry date. Justice Kinobe ruled that a letter from IUIU dated November 11, 2025, which sought to justify the continued use of the certificate, could not override clear statutory requirements.

“The petitioner’s only qualification had expired by the date of nomination, rendering both the Mature Age certificate and the NCHE equivalence invalid,” Justice Kinobe held.

The court emphasized that once the underlying qualification had expired, any equivalence derived from it automatically lost legal effect.

Petition dismissed

In conclusion, the High Court held that Mr. Walukaga did not possess the minimum academic qualifications prescribed under the Constitution and the Parliamentary Elections Act at the time of his nomination, and that the Electoral Commission was justified in cancelling his candidature.

The petition was accordingly dismissed.

However, Justice Kinobe declined to award costs to the respondents, observing that the matter raised issues of public importance regarding the interpretation of academic qualifications for parliamentary candidates—issues that had not previously been conclusively settled by Ugandan courts.

The decision is expected to serve as a significant precedent ahead of future elections, particularly in clarifying the treatment of Mature Age certificates and their validity at the time of nomination.