Court Authorises Substituted Service in Mao Election Petition, Setting Stage for Political Showdown

GULU, Uganda – The High Court in Gulu has authorised substituted service in an election petition challenging the victory of Justice and Constitutional Affairs Minister Norbert Mao, clearing a major procedural hurdle and setting the stage for a high-stakes legal and political battle over his parliamentary seat.

In a ruling delivered on April 20, 2026, Justice Phillip Odoki granted petitioner Tonny Kitara permission to notify Mao through a newspaper advertisement and the court notice board after repeated failed attempts at personal service. The decision arises from Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2026, filed under Election Petition No. 001 of 2026.

Kitara, the National Resistance Movement (NRM) flag-bearer who finished third in the January 15, 2026 parliamentary election for Laroo-Pece Division in Gulu City, is alleging widespread irregularities that substantially affected the outcome. Mao, who also serves as president general of the Democratic Party (DP), was declared the winner with 7,359 votes, defeating independent incumbent Fr Charles Onen (5,562 votes) and Kitara (2,867 votes).

The petition accuses Mao and the Electoral Commission of breaching the Parliamentary Elections Act 2005 through illegal campaigning and non-compliance with electoral laws.

Court Balances Strict Timelines with Fair Hearing Rights

Justice Odoki anchored the ruling in Article 28(1) of Uganda’s 1995 Constitution, which guarantees every person the right to a fair, speedy and public hearing. The judge found that Kitara’s legal team, led by advocate Gitta Imran of Alaka & Co., had made “all reasonable efforts” at personal service, including multiple unanswered calls to Mao’s provided number, a locked office at JLOS Towers in Naguru, Kampala, and an Easter holiday delay that constituted “special circumstances” justifying time enlargement.

“The purpose of service is to protect the respondent’s right to a fair hearing,” Justice Odoki noted, while stressing the public interest in determining petitions on merits rather than technicalities.

Mao must now collect the full petition from the court registry, with the notice also to appear in the Daily Monitor newspaper. Costs of the application will follow the main petition’s outcome.

A Case at the Intersection of Executive Power and Judicial Oversight

Beyond a routine constituency dispute, the case sits at the intersection of executive power, legislative legitimacy, and judicial oversight. Mao’s dual role as both a sitting minister and a member of parliament raises broader questions about whether senior officials can inadvertently—or otherwise—evade legal process in a democracy still grappling with electoral credibility.

As Justice Minister, Mao is the government’s chief legal advisor. Observers noted the irony of service difficulties in his own election challenge, though the court made no finding of deliberate evasion.

Broader Electoral Context: 30 Petitions Filed Nationwide

The Mao-Kitara case is one of at least 30 parliamentary election petitions filed nationwide after the January 2026 polls, 24 of them challenging women MPs, signalling persistent disputes over electoral processes and outcomes. The pattern mirrors 2021, when courts handled dozens of cases, many dismissed on procedural grounds.

Political analyst and former Electoral Commission official Dr. Livingstone Ssewanyana offered a cautionary note on systemic implications: “With 30 petitions already filed, the judiciary faces a capacity test. High-profile cases involving ministers amplify public scrutiny. If courts consistently enlarge time for holidays or reasonable delays, it could reduce technical dismissals, but only if paired with faster digital service options in future electoral reforms.”

What Lies Ahead

The ruling clears a procedural hurdle, but the real contest lies ahead. If Mao’s victory is nullified, a by-election could be triggered, affecting parliamentary arithmetic and testing the Justice Ministry’s own commitment to rule-of-law reforms. Conversely, a swift merits-based dismissal would reinforce the finality of electoral results.

As Parliament prepares to debate electoral reforms under the National Development Plan IV (NDP IV), the case offers a timely case study. Proposals for digital service protocols, mandatory pre-election audits, and reduced technical thresholds could minimise future procedural wrangles while preserving constitutional protections.

For a nation whose Constitution places sovereignty in the people, ensuring every vote counts—and every challenge is heard on its merits—remains the ultimate democratic test.