Supreme Court dismisses bid to halt January 15 elections

The Supreme Court of Uganda has dismissed an application seeking to halt all elections scheduled for January 15, 2026, including the presidential election.

The Court ruled that it lacks the constitutional mandate to intervene in pre-election disputes.

The application, filed under Civil Application Nos. 23 and 24 of 2025, stemmed from earlier matters including Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2016 and Civil Application No. 005 of 2019.

It was filed by Mukisa Patrick against the Attorney General, the Electoral Commission, and President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni.

Mukisa asked the Court to issue a series of declarations based on previous Supreme Court decisions arising from the 2016 presidential election and to restrain the Electoral Commission from proceeding with the forthcoming polls.

He sought pre-emptive judicial intervention to address what he described as constitutional and electoral concerns, despite not being a presidential candidate or a person authorised under the Constitution to file a presidential election petition.

The matter was heard by a coram of seven Justices: Prof. Lillian Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, Mike Chibita, Stephen Musota, Christopher Madrama Izama, Catherine Bamugemereire, Monica Mugenyi, and Muzamiru Mutangula Kibeedi. The panel considered both oral and written submissions, as well as the pleadings on record.

In its ruling, the Court found the application incompetent on several grounds. It held that the applicant lacked locus standi to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, noting that Article 104 of the Constitution applies strictly to post-election presidential petitions filed by aggrieved candidates.

The Court further observed that the dispute was pre-election in nature, a category over which the Supreme Court has no original jurisdiction.

Under Article 132 of the Constitution, the Court’s mandate is primarily appellate. Pre-election complaints, the Justices clarified, fall within the jurisdiction of the Electoral Commission, with appeals to the High Court.

The Court also ruled that it has no power to issue an injunction restraining the holding of presidential elections, as such an order would contradict the mandatory constitutional duty imposed on the Electoral Commission under Article 61(2) to conduct elections.

In addition, the Justices found that the sitting President had been improperly sued, citing constitutional provisions on presidential immunity. Proceedings against the third respondent were accordingly struck out.

The application was dismissed with no order as to costs, clearing the way for the scheduled elections to proceed as planned.