KAMPALA, Uganda – The Supreme Court has dismissed an application seeking to halt the 2026 general elections, nullify the 2021 elections and establish an interim government, ruling the matter falls outside its constitutional jurisdiction.
A panel of seven justices, led by Professor Lillian Tibatemwa Ekirikubinza, unanimously found the application incompetent, improperly before the court and raising issues beyond the court’s original jurisdiction.
In December 2025, Patrick Mukisa, a resident of Wakiso District, filed the civil application describing himself as a concerned senior citizen, whistleblower and defender of constitutionalism. Mukisa argued the Electoral Commission, the Attorney General and President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni — all named respondents — failed to implement recommendations and orders issued by the Supreme Court after the 2016 presidential election petition and a subsequent 2019 application.
Mukisa contended that recommendations from Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2016 (Amama Mbabazi vs. Museveni), as clarified in Civil Application No. 5 of 2019, amounted to mandatory electoral reforms required to be enacted within two years. Mukisa argued the failure to implement them rendered the 2021 general elections unconstitutional, illegal and void.
The Supreme Court had previously ordered Parliament to reform electoral laws to improve transparency, accountability and fairness. The 10 reforms included requiring presidential candidates to declare campaign funding sources, strengthening electronic transmission of results, banning military involvement in elections and holding returning officers accountable where courts annul results due to malpractice.
Additional reforms clarified elections in newly created administrative units, set minimum academic qualifications for certain urban political leaders, and introduced a code of conduct for political parties during campaigns. As a result, Mukisa asked the court to halt the 2026 presidential, parliamentary, and local government elections until all recommendations and orders had been implemented.
He further sought declarations dissolving the government elected in 2021, annulling all laws and appointments made during its tenure, and establishing an interim government to oversee reforms and organize fresh elections. Mukisa also sought additional orders, including scrapping independent candidates, removing army representation from Parliament, banning candidates who changed political parties after May 2023, ordering forensic audits of classified and supplementary budgets, and sanctioning senior government officials for alleged constitutional violations.
The application was strongly opposed by the respondents. Lawyers Usaama Sebuufu and Edwin Karugire represented President Museveni, Eric Sabiiti represented the Electoral Commission, and Kiryowa Kiwanuka represented the Attorney General. The respondents argued that the Supreme Court lacks original jurisdiction to hear pre-election disputes, and that Mukisa had no legal standing to bring the application.
Only presidential candidates, under Article 104 of the Constitution, may petition the Supreme Court, and only after election results are declared. The Electoral Commission added that pre-election complaints—related to nominations, campaign conduct, voter registers, and alleged irregularities—are handled by the Commission, with appeals lying to the High Court. Granting the injunction sought would halt the electoral process and risk a constitutional crisis.
President Museveni’s lawyer, Usaama Sebuufu, also argued that the reliefs sought were impractical and unconstitutional, requiring the court to order violations of mandatory constitutional timelines. In its ruling, the Supreme Court agreed with the respondents and dismissed the application in its entirety.The court held that Article 104 grants original jurisdiction only for presidential election petitions filed by an aggrieved party—strictly defined as a candidate who participated in the election. Since Mukisa was neither a candidate nor a party to earlier petitions, he lacked locus standi.
The court further clarified that under Article 132, the Supreme Court is primarily an appellate court, and pre-election disputes brought by voters or concerned citizens cannot be initiated in the Supreme Court. Regarding remedies, the justices ruled that the court cannot issue injunctions that halt constitutionally mandated electoral processes. Article 61 mandates the Electoral Commission to conduct presidential elections within specific timelines, and the court cannot compel constitutional violations.
Mukisa’s request to appear as amicus curiae was also denied, as amicus status requires participation in an existing and competent matter, which was absent. The justices struck out proceedings against President Museveni, citing constitutional immunity for a sitting president. Consequently, the application was dismissed with no order as to costs, and all proceedings against the president were struck out.
Speaking to the media, Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka said the court had correctly upheld the Constitution, dismissing claims that the government had failed to implement the Supreme Court’s 2016 recommendations. He noted that Parliament had amended several electoral laws following the ruling and that the government had reported back to the court in 2019.
On voting rights, Kiwanuka explained that prisoners and Ugandans in the diaspora may vote within constitutional and legal frameworks. Prisoners can apply to courts for temporary release to cast ballots, while Ugandans abroad can fly back to vote.
He emphasized that Uganda’s electoral system operates within constitutional limits, and changes to election procedures must be done through constitutional amendments, not court orders—contrary to a 2020 ruling by Justice Lydia Mugambe that restored voting rights for prisoners and the diaspora.
Mukisa, however, expressed dissatisfaction with the ruling and said he would challenge it, claiming that no electoral reforms had been implemented by the government or the Electoral Commission.
