Uganda is warming up for the consequential January 15, 2026 General Election. A week ago (October 27, 2025), Uganda acquired 60,000 Biometric Voter verification Machines.
The 2026 ballot will be the third time the East African country’s Electoral Commission is relying on technology to carry out an election, 2016 being the first time.
In 2011, the national voters’ register faced serious integrity challenges, prompting several calls for reforms between 2011 and 2015 ahead of the 2016 general election – amid renewed pleas for long-overdue electoral reforms.
Uganda adopted a comprehensive fingerprint biometric system for its national voters’ register, streamlining and harmonizing the efforts of all government agencies involved in citizen registration for civic purposes. This led to the establishment of the National Security Information System (NSIS), a multi-sectoral committee comprising the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Electoral Commission, the Directorate of Citizenship and Immigration Control, and the Uganda Registration Services Bureau, among others. Through a nationwide mass enrollment exercise, the NSIS registered all citizens of voting age, capturing detailed personal information – including photographs, biodata, and full fingerprint biometrics – to enhance accuracy, transparency, and security in the electoral process.
Subsequently, Uganda introduced the Biometric Voter Verification Machine in the 2016 general elections, the machines were intended to improve transparency and integrity of the process of identification of voters at the polling station; to prevent multiple voting, impersonation and to confirm or direct voters to their polling stations.
The introduction of the system was heavily contested in Amama Mbabazi v. Museveni and Others, Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2016. It was found to be unreliable for several reasons, including human error. Consequently, the Court recommended that the government establish a comprehensive legal framework to govern the use of technology in the electoral process.
Dear reader, between 2016 and 2025, no law has been enacted to provide a substantive legal regime for the use of technology in our elections. You may wonder why the much ado? No, this is an important matter, the current legal framework, is neutral or silent, yet for the third time, we will rely on biometric voter verification machines in our election-that undermines the integrity of our election!
In the absence of a specific legislation, accountability, transparency, and consequently electoral justice remain largely illusory. For instance, there are no clear timelines or procedures for the acquisition and procurement of electoral technology; no established mechanisms for stakeholders to verify the integrity of the machines; and no provisions for post-election access or forensic audits. Similarly, there is no framework for conducting exclusion impact assessments, no defined guidelines on when, how, and by whom pre-election system tests or dry runs should be conducted, and no legal requirement for periodic audits to ensure the integrity and reliability of the technology.
All these situations are supposed to be legislated upon, so that all actors including candidates, civil society, media and the electorate have an idea regarding how, when and why technology is being acquired, and deployed.
The integrity of an election rests on participation, accountability, and transparency – but is that the full essence of electoral democracy?
Comparatively, Kenya enacted the Elections (Technology) Regulations, 2017, under the Elections Act of 2011. These regulations outline the procedures for the acquisition, deployment, and use of technology in the electoral process. During the 2017 general elections, parties to the presidential election petition invoked these provisions by applying to the Court for access to the technological systems used in the polls – a request that the Court duly granted.
With such a dedicated legal framework in place, participants in the electoral process are empowered to scrutinize and seek accountability within the technological systems deployed.
This transparency is essential to prevent the emergence of so-called ‘Tech-Generated Leaders’ (TGLs) – outcomes where technology, rather than the electorate, determines leadership.
Without legal guardrails, Uganda’s 2026 polls risk becoming a digital illusion of democracy.