Supreme Court Draws Clear Line on Its Role, Declines Bid to Halt 2026 Elections

By Gad Masereka

The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line around its constitutional role, rejecting an attempt to use past election litigation as a basis for halting Uganda’s next general elections. In a unanimous decision delivered on January 12, 2026, the justices dismissed an application by Mukisa Patrick, ruling that the court neither had the authority nor the proper applicant before it to entertain such far reaching demands.

At the heart of the case was a bid to suspend the 2026 presidential, parliamentary and local government polls until recommendations arising from the 2016 presidential election petition had been fully implemented. That petition, brought by former prime minister Amama Mbabazi against President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, remains one of the most influential electoral cases in Uganda’s legal history, largely because of the reforms it urged Parliament and other institutions to pursue.

Mukisa, who did not contest in either the 2016 or 2021 elections, presented himself as a concerned citizen and whistle blower. He asked the court to issue an interim injunction stopping the forthcoming elections, to declare the 2021 polls unconstitutional, to dissolve the government formed thereafter and to order the creation of an interim administration pending fresh elections. He also sought to bar certain current and aspiring candidates from participating in future polls, arguing that their involvement conflicted with the spirit of the court’s earlier recommendations.

The justices approached the matter by first addressing two preliminary questions that ultimately proved decisive. The first was whether Mukisa had the legal standing to bring the case. The second was whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear what was, in essence, a pre election dispute.

In its ruling, the court stressed that Article 104 of the Constitution grants it original jurisdiction only in a narrow and specific context. That jurisdiction applies to post election presidential petitions filed by candidates who are aggrieved by declared results. Mukisa, the court noted, did not fall into that category. As a voter and non candidate, he could not claim to be an aggrieved party within the meaning of the Constitution, nor could he appear as a friend of court in the absence of a pending matter in which he had been formally admitted.

On the question of jurisdiction, the court was equally clear. Pre election disputes, the justices said, lie primarily with the Electoral Commission. Any challenge to the Commission’s decisions is subject to review by the High Court, not the Supreme Court. To accept Mukisa’s application would have meant stretching the court’s constitutional mandate beyond its intended limits, something the judges declined to do.

The ruling also addressed the practical implications of the orders sought. The court underscored that Article 61 of the Constitution places a mandatory duty on the Electoral Commission to organise elections within prescribed timelines. Courts, it said, cannot issue injunctions that would effectively paralyse that constitutional obligation. In addition, proceedings brought directly against President Museveni were struck out, with the justices reiterating that a sitting president enjoys constitutional immunity while in office.

Taken together, the court concluded that the application was fundamentally misconceived. It was dismissed in its entirety, with no order as to costs. The judges indicated that a detailed version of the ruling would be made available on the court’s electronic system.

The decision was welcomed by the Manager of the Office of the National Chairman, Hajjat Hadijah Namyalo, who framed it as an affirmation of constitutional order rather than a victory for any single political actor. She said stopping elections would have undermined Ugandans’ right to choose their leaders, adding that the court had safeguarded democratic freedoms by allowing the electoral process to proceed.

As the country edges closer to the 2026 polls, the judgment serves as a reminder of the boundaries between legal advocacy, political reform and constitutional procedure. While the recommendations from the 2016 petition continue to shape debate about electoral reforms, the court has made it clear that their implementation cannot be enforced through applications that fall outside the framework laid down by the Constitution.