Court Dismisses Petition Against NRM Endorsement of Among and Tayebwa

The High Court Civil Division has dismissed a judicial review application filed by Jack Nsubuga, also known as Mandela, which sought to overturn the National Resistance Movement’s (NRM) decision to endorse Anita Annet Among and Thomas Tayebwa as flag bearers for the positions of Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the 12th Parliament.

In a ruling delivered on May 11, 2026, Justice Collins Acellam upheld preliminary objections raised by the NRM and the two parliamentary leaders, ruling that the application was legally incompetent due to lack of standing and failure to exhaust internal party grievance mechanisms.

The dispute arose after the NRM’s Central Executive Committee (CEC) met at State House Entebbe on January 29, 2026, and endorsed the incumbents for another term. Nsubuga, who identified himself as an NRM member, challenged the decision, arguing that it was exclusionary and violated principles of internal party democracy.

He claimed the process denied other eligible members of the NRM Parliamentary Caucus the opportunity to express interest in the positions. However, the respondents — the NRM party, Ms Among, and Mr Tayebwa — dismissed the petition as “frivolous and vexatious.”

They maintained that the CEC acted within its constitutional mandate to provide leadership and guidance to the party. Justice Acellam agreed with the respondents on several technical grounds. The judge noted that Nsubuga attempted to sue on behalf of 72,000 LC1 chairpersons without obtaining the required representative order from the court.

The court also found that Nsubuga lacked locus standi because he was not a Member of Parliament and therefore was ineligible for the positions in question. Most importantly, the court emphasized the “Doctrine of Exhaustion,” noting that Nsubuga failed to demonstrate that he had fully utilized the NRM’s internal dispute resolution mechanisms before seeking court intervention.

Justice Acellam added that while political parties are subject to the law, courts must exercise restraint and avoid “descending into internal political management processes” unless clear illegality is proven.