The High court in Mbale has ordered the National Identification and Registration Authority (NIRA) to release certified registration records of two individuals at the centre of a citizenship dispute involving Namisindwa County MP Metrine Nanzala.
The ruling, delivered through the Judiciary’s Electronic Court Case Management Information System (ECCMIS), stems from an election petition filed by Apollo Masika, who is challenging Nanzala’s election on grounds that she is allegedly not a Ugandan citizen and is therefore ineligible to serve as a Member of Parliament.
Nanzala was elected in January 2026 after polling 9,521 votes against Masika’s 6,196. The legislator has previously described the dispute as politically motivated. Speaking during the National Resistance Movement (NRM) MPs’ retreat in April 2026, she appealed for protection, saying she felt unfairly targeted by her political opponents.
At the heart of the petition is a dispute over Nanzala’s parentage. Masika contends that Nanzala is not the biological child of Agnes Nelima and the late Michael Walyama. He argues that the couple had only four children, including Evans Wekesa, and that Nanzala is not a member of the family.
Nanzala, however, maintains that Nelima and Walyama are her biological parents. She relies on an affidavit sworn by Nelima, who states that she and the late Walyama had five children, including Nanzala.
The conflicting accounts over the family’s lineage have become a central issue in the petition, prompting Masika to seek access to official records held by NIRA relating to Nelima and Wekesa.
Masika argued that the records would help verify the accuracy of affidavits filed before court and establish the true composition of the family, which is relevant to determining Nanzala’s citizenship status and eligibility to hold office.
NIRA, through its manager of legal and advisory services, Brenda Kezaabu Agaba, informed court that information contained in the National Identification Register is protected by law but may be disclosed pursuant to a court order.
Nanzala opposed the application, arguing that the affected individuals were not parties to the proceedings and had not been served with the application.
She further contended that the application was frivolous and incompetent, maintaining that the court lacked jurisdiction because the law provides a specific statutory procedure for accessing such information.
Her lawyers also argued that she had been improperly joined to the application since no direct orders were being sought against her.
In his June 2 ruling, justice Dr Farouk Lubega dismissed the preliminary objections and affirmed the High court’s jurisdiction to order access to information contained in the National Identification Register where such information is necessary for the determination of a case.
The judge held that courts, as government institutions, are entitled under the law to access information held by NIRA whenever it is required for judicial proceedings. He also rejected claims of improper joinder, noting that the outcome of the application would directly affect Nanzala’s interests in the main election petition.
Justice Lubega observed that a key question before the court is whether Nelima and the late Walyama had four or five children and whether Nanzala is among their biological children.
Finding that the requested records could assist in resolving the dispute, the judge granted the application and ordered NIRA to provide certified copies of all registration details relating to Nelima and Wekesa contained in the National Identification Register.
He further directed that the costs of the application shall abide by the outcome of the main election petition. The dispute comes against the backdrop of earlier scrutiny of Nanzala’s citizenship status.
In September 2025, NIRA executive director Rosemary Kisembo issued Nanzala with a seven-day ultimatum to prove her Ugandan citizenship following concerns that she could be a Kenyan national.
The notice warned that failure to provide satisfactory proof could result in the cancellation of her registration on grounds that it had been obtained through inaccurate or fraudulent information.
