The newly formed tribunal to hear disputes from the NRM primaries has come under immediate fire, with critics questioning its legitimacy, structure, and capacity to deliver justice in a system many describe as fundamentally broken.
Just four days after the conclusion of the National Resistance Movement (NRM) party primaries, the party's freshly constituted elections tribunal--ostensibly set up to resolve emerging petitions--is already mired in controversy.
Questions are mounting over its independence and whether it can be trusted to deliver credible verdicts in the wake of widespread allegations of vote rigging, voter register inflation, and violence.
Led by lawyer John Musiime, the 28-member tribunal has already received more than 109 petitions--a number that in itself lays bare the level of discontent simmering within the party ranks.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
But the issue, critics argue, is not just about the backlog of complaints; it's about whether the tribunal has the moral and structural latitude to hold the party machinery accountable.
NRM member Eddie Kwizera was blunt in his assessment, asking whether the tribunal has "the audacity to resist influence peddling to deliver justice."
His remarks were echoed by prominent human rights lawyer Nicholas Opiyo, who dismissed the tribunal as ill-equipped and ill-timed.
"It is too small for the task whose processes were flawed from the onset," he said. "The powerplay in the party cannot allow the tribunal to work without influence."
Indeed, many observers believe the tribunal was constituted too late to be meaningful.
Critics say it should have been embedded in the electoral framework from the beginning--not hastily assembled after the chaos had already erupted.
"There was no tribunal when we realized the register was inflated and faulted," one political analyst said. "How do you report to police over police?"
The structure of the tribunal--and its position within the party's power hierarchy--has raised alarms about its potential conflict of interest.
Since it reports to the same party organs that oversaw the disputed process, some believe its capacity to operate independently is deeply compromised.
Legal experts also point to broader structural and procedural limitations.
The tribunal, they argue, is confined to evaluating specific petitions but lacks the jurisdiction to examine the systemic irregularities that plagued the primaries.
There are no clear sanctions for those implicated in malpractice, and the threshold for overturning results is deemed too high and too vague.
Calls have been growing for the inclusion of independent, apolitical actors in the tribunal--people not previously involved in planning or conducting the elections.
Their absence, many argue, feeds the perception that the process is designed to protect the party's status quo rather than rectify injustices.
Enoch Barata, the NRM's director of legal affairs, has sought to allay these fears. He insists the tribunal is independent and fully capable of dispensing justice.
He downplayed the volume of petitions, comparing them favourably to previous electoral cycles, and pointed out that complainants still have the right to appeal to the party chairman.
But for many party members and observers, the damage may already be done.
"The problem isn't the number of petitions--it's the nature of the elections," said one veteran NRM organiser.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
"You can't call something fair when you know who'll win before voting begins. Now they want us to trust the same system to clean itself?"
With widespread irregularities, reports of violence in constituencies such as Karenga and Kapchorwa, and a growing list of candidates contesting the results, the pressure on the Musiime-led tribunal is immense.
Yet even as it begins its work, few believe it can serve as a meaningful check on the power brokers within the ruling party.
Unless it demonstrates a willingness to make bold decisions, including nullifying fraudulent results and penalising powerful actors, the tribunal risks being remembered not as an arbiter of justice--but as an instrument of containment.
Whether it will rise above party influence or simply rubber-stamp contested outcomes remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: for many within the NRM, this tribunal is already under trial.
