State Minister for Water and Environment Atim Beatrice Anywar is expected to appear before Kitgum High Court on Thursday, September 24, 2026, for cross-examination as an election petition challenging the victory of Kitgum Municipality MP Denis Onekalit Amere moves to substantive hearing.

The respondents’ lawyer has asked the court to require Anywar and her witness to appear for cross-examination over evidence contained in affidavits filed in support of the petition.

The development comes after the court on Monday dismissed preliminary objections raised by the respondents, clearing the way for the petition to proceed to hearing on its merits.

Atim Beatrice Anywar filed the petition challenging the election of Onekalit Denis Amere as Member of Parliament for Kitgum Municipality following the January 15, 2026 parliamentary elections.

The respondents are Onekalit, the Electoral Commission and Kitgum District Returning Officer Betty Atim Owot.

During Monday’s proceedings, Assistant Registrar Kitgum Magistrate Court, Ekirita Robert Mwanda, sitting on behalf of High Court Judge Justice Amos Kwizera, rejected three preliminary objections concerning evidence of alleged electoral offences, affidavits filed in support of the petition and the capacity in which an electoral official had been cited.

Also read: Kitgum court dismisses Atim Anywar’s bid for voters’ register examination in election petition

The court held that evidence relating to alleged electoral offences is not automatically inadmissible simply because the conduct complained of may also amount to a criminal offence.

It further held that a criminal conviction is not a prerequisite for admitting evidence relevant to an inquiry into conduct alleged to constitute an electoral offence.

The court said the questions of whether electoral irregularities occurred, whether the conduct was wrongful and whether witnesses are credible and reliable would be determined after considering the evidence presented before the court.

The court also rejected objections to the affidavits supporting the petition, noting that the affidavits contained certificates of translation and that there was no evidence challenging the deponents’ understanding or adoption of their contents.

On the third objection, the court held that the capacity in which an electoral official was sued should be determined from the circumstances and pleadings as a whole, rather than solely from the name or description used in the petition.

With all three preliminary objections overruled, the court directed the parties to proceed to substantive hearing on Thursday, September 24, at 10am.

The cross-examination of Anywar and other deponents is expected to form part of the process through which the respondents will test the evidence and allegations contained in the affidavits.

The respondents’ legal team has indicated that it intends to cross-examine four deponents during the hearing.

The petition follows Anywar’s challenge to Onekalit’s victory in the Kitgum Municipality parliamentary election.

According to the results cited in earlier court proceedings, Onekalit was declared the winner after polling 6,176 votes against Anywar’s 5,013 votes.

Anywar’s petition alleges electoral irregularities, including claims relating to the voters’ register, multiple voting, impersonation and other electoral malpractices. The Electoral Commission and Onekalit have opposed the petition.

In a related ruling delivered on Monday, the court dismissed Anywar’s application seeking production of the voters’ register, holding that she had not provided sufficient evidence to justify the discovery order.

The court said allegations concerning deceased persons voting, multiple voting, impersonation and ballot stuffing had not been sufficiently linked to specific voters, polling stations or other supporting records.

The court nevertheless allowed the main election petition to proceed. Onekalit has said he will defend his victory through the evidence and the law and maintain the position that the election reflected the will of voters.

The substantive hearing will now allow both sides to present and challenge evidence before the court makes a determination on the petition.

The court has ordered that costs of the preliminary applications will abide by the outcome of the main petition.