With just four weeks to Uganda’s polls, Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka has urged the Judiciary to avoid delays in handling election petitions, warning that missed deadlines could erode public confidence and destabilise the country.
Speaking to High Court judges during a specialised election petitions management training at the Court of Appeal in Kampala on Wednesday, Kiwanuka said courts must brace for a surge in litigation immediately after voting day, stressing that timely justice underpins electoral democracy.
The government’s chief legal adviser cautioned that any mishandling of disputes, including failure to observe statutory timelines, could cast doubt on the legitimacy of election outcomes.
‘Election petitions are constitutional stress tests meant to stabilise the State after disputed polls. Electoral timelines are mandatory and non-extendable. Any petition filed outside the prescribed period becomes incurably defective irrespective of the gravity of the allegations raised,’ he said.
He added: ‘Electoral disputes are constitutional instruments for safeguarding democracy. If we protect our processes and uphold precedent, justice will not stumble.’
Kiwanuka warned that delayed rulings inflame political tension beyond the courtroom.
‘After six months, it is not the lawyer on trial; it is the judge. The country is watching, and people want certainty,’ he said.
Uganda’s electoral laws impose strict timelines. Parliamentary election petitions must be filed within 30 days after winners are gazetted and concluded within six months, while local government petitions must be filed within 14 days and determined within three months.
According to the Attorney General, these limits are deliberately tight to prevent protracted disputes that risk paralysing governance. He urged judges not to entertain applications aimed at stretching deadlines.
Kiwanuka also criticised what he termed speculative petitions supported by disorganised affidavits and voluminous submissions, saying they burden courts and slow proceedings.
‘Election petitions are not political rallies. They are judicial inquiries governed strictly by rules of evidence. Lawyers who interfere with witnesses or tamper with evidence must face consequences,’ he said.
He reminded judges that while losing candidates have automatic standing, voter-led petitions require at least 500 verified signatures from the constituency.
‘It is not the court’s job to reorganise pleadings or manufacture evidence. If a witness signs an affidavit they do not understand, the advocate who drafted it must explain,’ he added.
At the same training, Principal Judge Jane Frances Abodo said 39 pre-election matters have already been filed before the High Court, compared with two at the same stage ahead of the 2021 polls.
She said filings this cycle could surpass the 179 heard in 2021, prompting the Judiciary to consider recalling judges from leave.
‘The law prioritises election petitions above all other court business. Ordinary cases may be halted to ensure electoral disputes are determined expeditiously,’ Abodo said, citing heightened political competition and growing public reliance on courts for electoral accountability.
Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo called for consistency and clarity in rulings.
‘We cannot have the High Court saying different things on the same question. When we speak, we speak as one institution. Election decisions must be written clearly, not just for lawyers and academics, but also for the public,’ he said.
During the engagement, the Electoral Commission demonstrated biometric voter verification for 2026, saying systems will operate offline.
‘For the 2026 elections, voter verification will be strictly electronic. Any polling station that bypasses biometric verification risks cancellation of results,’ an EC official said.