When 22-year-old university student Sharon Atim typed her name into an unfamiliar website shared on X, she found her polling station in seconds, complete with GPS directions, age breakdowns of voters at her station, and instructions in Luo.
“I tried the EC website before. It kept timing out,” she said. “This one just worked.”
The website, registry.ugtally.com, is operated by FANON, a Gen Z–led civic tech initiative launched in July 2025 has gone viral in the final weeks before Uganda’s January 15, 2026 general elections.Marketed as a voter locator and civic education tool, FANON allows users to search polling stations, view voter demographics by age and gender, and navigate to voting locations in eight local languages.
But as its popularity has surged, so has controversy. The Electoral Commission (EC) has publicly disowned the platform, warning that it is unauthorised, potentially misleading, and may constitute an illegal use of voter data. The Commission has formally written to the Uganda Communications Commission (UCC) seeking guidance on whether the site should be taken down.
At the centre of the storm is a deeper question gripping Uganda’s tense election season: Is FANON a civic innovation filling official gaps, or an unlawful data breach threatening electoral integrity and privacy?
With just days to polling, voter anxiety is high. Trust in official systems remains fragile following past election disputes, internet shutdowns, and allegations of voter suppression.
The EC insists it has issued the National Voters Register to all presidential candidates under Section 19 of the Electoral Commission Act, and that voters can verify their details through official channels. Yet FANON’s explosive uptake, especially among urban population and diaspora Ugandans, has exposed persistent gaps in accessibility, usability, and public confidence.
“This tool exists because people are desperate for simple, reliable information,” said one Kampala-based civic activist. “That desperation should worry the state.”
At the same time, the stakes are high. Uganda’s Data Protection and Privacy Act, 2019, criminalises unauthorised access, processing, or publication of personal data.Misuse of voter information could enable profiling, misinformation, or intimidation in an already volatile political climate.
EC Chairperson Justice Simon Byabakama Mugenyi has issued direct warning. “The website operating under www.registry.ugtally.com is not authorised and is not affiliated with the Electoral Commission,” Byabakama said. “Any unauthorised access, hosting, or use of voter registration data constitutes an offence punishable under the law.”
He cited Articles 60 and 61 of the 1995 Constitution, which grant the EC exclusive authority to compile, manage, and update the National Voters Register.
The EC further cautioned the public against submitting personal information to the platform, warning that it “may pose risks to users” and that the Commission “shall not be held responsible” for how data accessed through the site is used.
Meanwhile, Uganda Communications Commission (UCC) Executive Director Nyombi Thembo confirmed that the regulator is assessing the matter, amid a wider crackdown on election-related misinformation.
“We are regulators. If there is any intervention to be made, it will be done transparently and within the law,” Nyombi said, dismissing speculation of an internet shutdown but stressing that digital platforms must not be “weaponised”.
The controversy escalated sharply after prominent human rights lawyer and election observer Dr. Sarah Bireete, Executive Director Centre for Constitutional Governance was charged earlier this month with unlawful disclosure of personal data, after publicly promoting the FANON platform.
Her prosecution has alarmed civil society groups, including Citizens’ Coalition for Electoral Democracy in Uganda (CCEDU) and Election Observation Network (EHORN), who warn that the case could criminalise digital civic engagement.
Legal scholar Prof. Jamil Mujuzi argues the case hinges on a critical unanswered question: “The law is clear on data protection. But the state must first prove that FANON accessed protected voter data unlawfully, rather than aggregating publicly available information,” Mujuzi said.
FANON’s developers have not publicly disclosed how the platform sources its data. Domain records show ugtally.com was registered in July 2025 via Amazon Registrar, with ownership masked through privacy services and listed UK-based contacts, fueling further suspicion.
Publicly, FANON describes itself as non-partisan and youth-led, emerging in December 2025 through coordinated social media campaigns. Screenshots, X testimonials, and influencer endorsements helped the tool gain traction almost overnight.
Users praise its speed, mobile-friendly design, and multilingual accessibility, features long criticised as missing from official EC platforms. Yet the anonymity of its developers, combined with the platform’s granular voter breakdowns, has intensified fears of political manipulation.
“Transparency is the missing piece,” said one election observer. “Innovation without accountability is dangerous in an election.” The FANON saga is unfolding against a broader backdrop of heightened state vigilance.
Speaking to URN on Monday Permanent Secretary Ministry of ICT and National Guidance Dr. Aminah Zawedde warned media houses and digital publishers against spreading unverified election information, citing the Computer Misuse Act, Electronic Transactions Act, and data protection laws. Broadcasting premature results or inciting content, officials stress, is illegal.
With polling day imminent, the EC has urged voters to rely solely on official channels, including voter location slips, which now include barcodes compatible with new biometric kits, and the EC’s website.
Whether FANON is shut down, sanctioned, or survives as a parallel civic tool could set a defining precedent for digital participation, privacy, and state power in Uganda’s democracy.
For voters like Sharon Atim, the dilemma is immediate and personal. “I just want to vote without confusion,” she said. “If the system worked, we wouldn’t be here.”
As Uganda heads into one of its most consequential elections, the clash between civic tech innovation and state control may prove as decisive as the vote itself.
