Without electoral reforms 2026 election is a farce

Last week’s report of the resignation of Lady Justice Esther Mayambala  Kisaakye put the Supreme Court in the spotlight in more ways than one.

Back in 2021 Justice Kisaakye made headlines when she publicly fell out with the rest of the bench. The court was hearing the presidential election petition brought before it by opposition NUP party candidate, Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu. It was withdrawn before it was fully heard and decided. 

Presidential election petitions have always been controversial. Irregularities have been cited but deemed not to be substantial enough to warrant overturning the election result and calling for a re-run of the election.

Some to the key complaints by the petitioners have typically been the use of violence and other impediments by the security forces against the opposition, in favour of the incumbent. These include arresting agents of opposition candidates, wounding and killing some of them, denying the opposition access to venues of rallies, some of which are disrupted, (mis)using the Public Order Management Act etc. Blocking the opposition from accessing both private and public media even when they pay to use these facilities. Abuse and misuse of state resources by the ruling NRM to disadvantage the opposition. Ballot stuffing, bribery, lack of transparency in tallying and relaying of election results by the Electoral Commission whose independence from the incumbent NRM party is questioned.

Typically, the court has ‘voiced concerns’ and put it to the state to come up with electoral reforms. To this day nothing substantial has happened. The last time round by the time the minister of Justice brought in what were called reforms, it was too late for the Parliament to discuss them in detail. In fact some have noted the addition of the term ‘Independent’ to ‘Electoral Commission’ as one of the significant superficial changes to a body whose operations have remained more or less the same.  

If the status quo remains, Uganda will definitely suffer two major issues. First it will exacerbate voter apathy. People will not see the need to take part in a process fraught with fraud where their votes do not count. Also for the sake of their lives and that of their property it will be smarter to keep away from a violent election. Cynicism is not good for democracy.

 Secondly it will create a level of desperation among Uganda’s youthful population who feel that their voice is muted in the absence of credible electoral process. Such people are easy to manipulate and convince to use violent means to influence or cause change. It is very difficult for violence to act as a foundation for democracy because those who use it rarely lose its taste as it may be applied with little or no accountability.

Elections by their nature are very expensive and so should not be a farce with predetermined results. That is why there is need to start the process of addressing electoral reforms as a matter of urgency. But we should not be naive to think that merely having laws on the statute books as reforms, means that process is transformed. We must appreciate the issues that have brought us this far and address them. 

Chief among these is the interests of the incumbent Yoweri Museveni, especially his seeming desire to rule Uganda perpetually. The petitions in 2001, 2006, 2016 and 2021 have been against Museveni’s wins. It is noteworthy that the contentious amendments to the 1995 Constitution in 2005 and 2015 that lifted term and age limits respectively consolidated his incumbency and unassailable position in the politics of Uganda.

He still appoints the commission supposed to oversee the election in which he is a player. He commands the army which he refers to as ‘his,’ and can deploy it in the election to beef up the police, citing ‘security threats.’ 

His party NRM has an overwhelming majority in the 11th Parliament. He usually summons MPs including the Speakers to lecture them on the interests of the NRM party and the position it should take. Museveni can use it to propagate ‘electoral reforms’ that favour him and disadvantage his opponents, should he so wish. The alternative of a private member’s Bill is constrained by need for numbers and a certificate of financial implications to get to the floor of Parliament. That comes from the Executive.

The other important player; the Judiciary, operates in an environment where the Executive headed by Museveni, decides on how it is funded, facilitated and staffed.

This background informs us that Museveni, the man who has been in power for the last 38 years, is a major player in the whole election set up in Uganda. You deceive yourself if you think you can have genuine reforms without his input and good will. Museveni must at the bottom of his heart be convinced to believe in genuine elections, whatever the results, and fight to see them take place. In reality, that is a very tall order.

So the electoral reforms should have his personal security in mind that will allow him to retire in peace. These should also grant him a degree of influence on deciding who immediately succeeds him.

We may if need be also restore term limits so that whoever takes over works to tighten the electoral process and makes it better after he leaves in 10 years’ time. This happened in the second term of Kenya’s third president the late Mwai Kibaki who instituted electoral reforms that led to the annulling of the election in 2017.

The appointment and composition of the Electoral Commission should be removed from the sole hand of the Head of State. It should also have security of tenure engraved in the constitution so that they do not work with the fear of sacking above their heads like the proverbial sword of Damocles.

The laws should institute express punishments including summary dismissal from the forces for security officers who interfere with elections. They should also be made personally liable for their actions.

Similarly candidates liable for election malpractice or commissioning the same through agents should be banned for a period from vying for elective office.

Lastly the courts should make clear, the ‘substantiality test,’ failure of which leads to the annulling of an election. It should also increase the time needed to file petitions after elections, to give petitioners more time to focus and ease their efforts to gather credible evidence.

The list is endless for the challenges are many. That does not mean there should not be an effort. Any election without reforms will be farcical.

Mr Sengoba is a commentator on political and social issues

Twitter: @nsengoba