High Court Upholds Electoral Commission’s Power to Denominate Candidates with Expired Academic Qualifications

Facts

The Petitioner, Walukaga Mathias, was duly nominated on 23 October 2025 to contest for the position of Member of Parliament for Busiro East Constituency.

His nomination was based on A Certificate of Mature Age/Aptitude Test issued by the Islamic University in Uganda (IUIU) on 12 June 2023, expiring on 12 June 2025; and A Certificate of Equivalence issued by the National Council for Higher Education (NCHE) on 11 June 2025, equating the Mature Age certificate to the Advanced Level standard.

Following nomination, the 2nd Respondent, a registered voter, lodged a complaint before the Electoral Commission (MIN.COMP/048/2025), challenging the Petitioner’s academic qualifications on the grounds that the Mature Age certificate had expired before nomination.

After hearings conducted in November 2025, the Electoral Commission denominated the Petitioner, holding that by the date of nomination, his Mature Age certificate had expired and could not support a valid nomination.

Aggrieved, the Petitioner appealed to the High Court.

Issues for Determination

The High Court framed the following key issues:

1. Whether the petition was properly before the Court in light of the preliminary objections raised.

2. Whether the Electoral Commission had jurisdiction to entertain a complaint challenging the validity/expiry of a Mature Age certificate equated by NCHE.

3. Whether the Petitioner possessed the requisite academic qualifications to contest for Member of Parliament.

4. What remedies were available to the parties.

   
   

Submissions of the Parties

Petitioner’s Submissions

1. The Electoral Commission lacked jurisdiction to revisit academic qualifications already equated by NCHE.

2. Once NCHE issued a certificate of equivalence, only the High Court could overturn it.

3. The Mature Age certificate remained valid because the Petitioner enrolled for further studies before its expiry.

4. A literal interpretation of the expiry provision led to absurdity and injustice.

5. The decision of the Electoral Commission was unjust, illegal, and ultra vires.

Respondents’ Submissions

1. The Electoral Commission has constitutional and statutory mandate to hear and determine election complaints before polling.

2. NCHE’s role is limited to equivalence; validity at nomination is a separate question within EC’s mandate.

3. The Mature Age certificate expired on 12 June 2025 and was invalid by nomination date.

4. Once the underlying qualification expires, the equivalence certificate collapses.

5. The Petitioner lacked minimum qualifications under Section 4 of the Parliamentary Elections Act.

Legal Representation

1. For the Petitioner, Ms. Nalukoola Advocates & Solicitors;Ms. Alaka & Company Advocates;M/s Ahamark Advocates.

2. For the 1st Respondent (Electoral Commission):Electoral Commission Legal Department.

3. For the 2nd Respondent:M/s Signature Advocates.

Court’s Findings

1. On Preliminary Objections

The Court held that the preliminary objections lacked merit the Court distinguished the case from Okabe Patrick v Opio Joseph Linos, noting that all commissioners were present during hearings.

As Justice Kinobe stated:

"Because all the commissioners were present during the sitting and hearing there is no evidence or reason to doubt that the letter signed by the chairperson communicating the decision, doesn't represent the decision of the commission as a whole. The chairperson as the head of the institution is well within his mandate to communicate the decision of the commission."

The Court emphasized that resolving pre-election issues at this stage prevents future injustice and unnecessary litigation.

The Court found that Section 15 of the Electoral Commission Act must be read harmoniously with Article 61(1)(f) of the Constitution, which empowers the Commission to hear election complaints.

The Court held;

"Since Article 61 (1) (f) of the 1995 Constitution gives the 1st respondent the right to hear and determine election complaints arising before and during polling, I agree with the respondents that the commission had the jurisdiction to entertain the 2nd respondent's petition."

The petition complied with Section 15(3) of the Electoral Commission Act, which requires appeals by way of petition supported by affidavits specifying the declaration sought, not memoranda of appeal as in civil procedure.

2. On Electoral Commission's Jurisdiction

The Court affirmed that the Electoral Commission had jurisdiction to adjudicate the validity of academic credentials:

"The question before the Electoral Commission was whether the academic credentials presented by the petitioner were valid for purposes of nomination. The discussion revolved around the expiry of the same... I find that what the Electoral Commission did was to adjudicate a conflict based on whether the said certificate was valid."

The Court distinguished between NCHE's role (accrediting and equating credentials) and the Electoral Commission's role (adjudicating election disputes). Justice Kinobe held:

"should the certificate of mature entry expire before nomination, it is my opinion that the certificate of equivalence equally collapses and cannot be used for purposes of nomination."

The Court established an important principle for timing of challenges:

"challenges to a candidate's academic qualifications or eligibility must be raised before elections, unless the defect was not reasonably discoverable at that time."

3. On Petitioner's Qualifications

The Court conducted a detailed analysis of the timeline and found that the Petitioner lacked valid qualifications at nomination:

"From the above timeline, I note that the petitioner's only qualification had expired by nomination date, rendering both the certificate and NCHE equivalence invalid."

The Court rejected the argument that enrollment in university extended validity:

"The letter from IUIU dated 11th November 2025 suggesting conditional validity if the certificate is used to enrol for further studies cannot override the express legal framework."

Justice Kinobe emphasized strict compliance with Legal Notice No. 12 of 2015:

"Legal Notice No. 12 of 2015 sets strict conditions with no provision for extension or exception. It provides that a mature age entrance examinations certificate awarded to a person aged at least 22 years who has passed the mature age entry examination should be valid for two years from the date of award."

Application of Law to Facts

The Court found that by 23rd October 2025 (nomination date), the certificate issued on 12th June 2023 had expired on 12th June 2025 - more than four months before nomination. The NCHE equivalence certificate issued one day before expiry could not validate an expired underlying qualification.

The Court rejected the golden rule of interpretation argument, finding no ambiguity or absurdity in the two-year validity provision. The law clearly states the certificate is valid for two years from award, and this period had lapsed.

HOLDING

The Court dismissed the petition and made the following determinations:

1. All three preliminary objections were overruled. The petition was properly before the Court.

2. The Electoral Commission had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint regarding validity of academic credentials. The Commission's role in assessing validity of credentials at nomination does not usurp NCHE's role in determining equivalence.

3. The Petitioner did not possess valid academic qualifications at the time of nomination. His Mature Age/Aptitude Test Certificate had expired on 12th June 2025, four months before the nomination date of 23rd October 2025.

4. Final Order:

   1. The petition was dismissed

   2. The Electoral Commission rightly denominated the Petitioner

   3. Each party to bear their own costs given the matter raised issues of public importance not previously tested in jurisprudence

KEY TAKEAWAYS

For Electoral Law Practice

1. Academic qualifications must be valid on the nomination date itself. Certificates with expiry dates must be carefully monitored, and expired certificates cannot support nomination even if subsequently renewed or if equivalence was obtained before expiry.

2. An NCHE certificate of equivalence is derivative - it collapses if the underlying qualification expires. NCHE's determination of equivalence does not extend or alter the validity period of the original certificate.

3. The two-year validity period for Mature Age certificates under Legal Notice No. 12 of 2015 is strict and not subject to exceptions based on enrollment in further studies. Letters from institutions suggesting continued validity cannot override statutory provisions.

4. Nomination disputes must be raised before elections via the Electoral Commission. Post-election challenges under Section 61(1)(d) of the Parliamentary Elections Act are only permissible if the defect was not reasonably discoverable at nomination.

5. The Electoral Commission and NCHE have distinct but complementary roles:

   1. NCHE: Technical determination of equivalence of qualifications

   2. Electoral Commission: Adjudication of election disputes including validity of credentials at nomination

   3. High Court: Appellate jurisdiction over Electoral Commission decisions (final)

For Candidates and Political Actors

6. Verify Qualification Validity Before Nomination: 

   Candidates must ensure all academic qualifications are valid on nomination date, not just at the time of application or verification by NCHE.

7. Enrollment Does Not Extend Certificate Validity: 

   Using a Mature Age certificate for university enrollment does not extend its two-year statutory validity period for other purposes, including parliamentary nominations.

8. Plan Ahead for NCHE Equivalence: 

   Candidates should obtain NCHE equivalence certificates well before nomination and ensure the underlying qualifications remain valid through nomination date.

For Electoral Administration

9. Electoral Commission's Gatekeeping Role: 

   The Electoral Commission has clear jurisdiction to assess whether candidates meet constitutional and statutory qualifications at nomination, including examining validity of academic credentials.

10. Procedural Fairness in Collegiate Bodies: 

    While the Electoral Commission must act collectively as required by Section 8 of the Electoral Commission Act, communication of decisions by the Chairperson is valid where all commissioners participated in hearings.

Broader Constitutional Implications

11. Statutory Provisions Cannot Override Constitution: 

    Constitutional provisions (like Article 61(1)(f) empowering the Electoral Commission) take precedence over conflicting statutory interpretations.

12. Public Interest in Electoral Integrity: 

    Courts will prioritize resolution of nomination disputes before elections to avoid unnecessary expense, voter inconvenience, and potential election annulments.

13. Costs in Public Interest Cases: 

    Courts may decline to award costs even to successful parties where petitions raise important issues of public interest not previously tested in jurisprudence, encouraging development of electoral law.

Read the full case

Walukaga Mathias v Electoral Commission and Another 2025 UGHCCD 230 (21 December 2025).pdf

Download PDF • 443KB