EC urges Supreme Court to dismiss Kasibante’s petition

Kampala, Uganda | THE INDEPENDENT | The Electoral Commission (EC) has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss with costs a presidential election petition filed by former candidate Robert Kasibante.

The Commission, chaired by Justice Simon Byabakama, insists that the January 15, 2026, presidential election was conducted in substantial compliance with the Constitution and electoral laws, and that President Yoweri Museveni was validly elected.

The Electoral Commission has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss with costs a presidential election petition filed by former candidate Robert Kasibante, insisting that the January 15, 2026, presidential election was conducted in substantial compliance with the Constitution and electoral laws, and that President Yoweri Museveni was validly elected.

In its response to the petition, supported by an affidavit sworn by Electoral Commission Chairperson Simon Byabakama Mugenyi, the Commission rejects allegations of electoral malpractice, violence, voter bribery, lack of independence, misuse of state resources, and procedural irregularities, describing them as vague, speculative, and unsupported by evidence capable of meeting the constitutional threshold required to annul a presidential election.

The Commission confirms that the presidential election was held on January 15, 2026, and that results were declared on January 17, within the constitutionally required 48 hours.

According to Kasibante’s petition, the Electoral Commission declared Museveni the winner of the January 17, 2026, election with 7,946,772 votes. Opposition leader Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu was declared runner-up with 2,741,238 votes. Nathan Nandala Mafabi obtained 209,039 votes, Gen.

Gregory Mugisha Muntu garnered 59,276 votes, Frank Buura received 45,959 votes, Mubarak Munyagwa polled 31,666 votes, while Kasibante himself obtained 33,440 votes.

The EC  Chairman, however, argues that Kasibante has not demonstrated any legally recognisable grievance under Article 104 of the Constitution and Section 61 of the Presidential Elections Act.

Electoral Commission Chairperson, through the Commission’s external Lawyers of Mwesigwa Rukutana and Company  Advocates, contends that the petition offends the rules of pleadings, is incurably defective, and should be struck out for being embarrassing and prejudicial to the respondents, including President  Museveni and the Attorney General.

Responding to claims that it lacked independence and acted under the influence of the president, ruling party officials, and other state actors, the Commission maintains that it operated independently, impartially, and professionally throughout the electoral process. It states that all decisions taken before, during, and after polling were lawful and aimed at ensuring that Ugandans exercised their right to vote freely.

On allegations of violence, intimidation, and harassment of opposition candidates and supporters, the Commission states that the election period was generally peaceful. It says it did not receive any formal complaints from Kasibante regarding attacks on his campaign or obstruction of his activities. The EC notes that Kasibante was provided with state-funded security, including a campaign vehicle and 16 police officers, and that he was able to campaign without restriction.

The Commission further explains that incidents of violence cited in the petition largely involved confrontations between supporters of other candidates, particularly those linked to Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu, some of which remain under police investigation. It denies claims that the Uganda People’s Defence Forces or the Uganda Police Force acted in a partisan manner or interfered with lawful campaign activities.

Addressing allegations that President Museveni, as commander-in-chief, bears responsibility for alleged misconduct by security agencies, the Commission states that security forces were deployed lawfully, under police command, and strictly for the purpose of maintaining law and order, protecting lives, and safeguarding property. It insists that the deployment did not undermine political competition or voter participation.

On claims of voter bribery, corruption, and improper inducement, the Commission says it neither received nor registered any substantiated complaints implicating the incumbent or his agents. It has put the petitioner to strict proof, maintaining that allegations of money distribution and misuse of public funds remain unproven and unsupported by admissible evidence.

The EC  has also responded to allegations concerning the use of state resources during the campaign, stating that the sitting president was lawfully entitled to continue using facilities attached to the office while contesting for re-election, as permitted by law. It denies that public institutions, government vehicles, or security agencies were unlawfully deployed to disadvantage other candidates.

Regarding claims of biased media coverage, the Commission rejects allegations that state-owned media favoured the incumbent, stating that all candidates were accorded reasonable access in line with existing guidelines.

A significant portion of the Commission’s response addresses allegations that it failed to properly gazette polling stations. The EC explains that ahead of the election, it undertook a nationwide reorganisation and splitting exercise that increased the number of polling stations to 50,739. The exercise, according to the Commission, was intended to reduce congestion, shorten voter queues, and improve efficiency on polling day. It insists that all polling stations were duly gazetted, publicly displayed, and communicated to candidates in advance.

The records before the Supreme Court indicate that from the EC’s meeting held on April 22nd 2025, they decided to implement resolution two of creating 15,256 additional polling stations, each accommodating a maximum of 600 voters.

” I know that in the implementation of the 2nd Respondent’s/EC decision, polling stations with high voter population were identified and split, maintaining them at the locations of their parent polling stations”, says Byabakama in his affidavit.

He adds that ” whereas the 2nd Respondent/EC had estimated an increase of 15.256 additional Polling Stations to arise from the splitting exercise, only 12.424 Polling Stations were created because of limited space in some areas for establishment of new polling stations without altering the location of the parent polling stations”.

It is also Byabakama’s evidence on oath that the additional 12,424 polling stations did not change the location of the parent polling stations as set out in the gazette of 25th April 2025.

” I know that the polling station splitting exercise which ended on 3 September 2025 resulted in an additional 12,424 polling stations, making a total of 50.739 polling stations for the 2026 General Elections”, adds Byabakama’s affidavit.

On the integrity of the national voters’ register, the Commission outlines a nationwide update, display, verification, and objection process conducted between January and May 2025. It states that all presidential candidates, including Kasibante, were provided with copies of the voters’ register as well as the final list of polling stations ahead of polling day.

The EC Chairman has also defended  the use of biometric voter verification machines, stating that the technology was lawfully introduced under regulations issued by the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs in 2025 and gazetted prior to the election. While acknowledging that some machines experienced operational challenges, the Commission maintains that no voter was disenfranchised, as identification using the national voters’ register was lawfully authorised where biometric verification failed.

On the processes of vote counting, tallying, and declaration of results, the Commission states that counting was conducted transparently at polling stations in the presence of candidates’ agents. It adds that results were transmitted, tallied, and declared at a single national tally centre accessible to accredited stakeholders, and within the constitutional timeline.

The Electoral Commission further  contends  that the presidential election was conducted substantially in compliance with the Constitution and electoral laws, and that any irregularities alleged by the petitioner did not affect the final result in a substantial manner.

. It has therefore asked the Supreme Court to dismiss Kasibante’s petition in its entirety and award costs to the respondents .

Kasibante, a former presidential candidate who contested on the National Peasants Party ticket, filed the petition within the constitutionally prescribed 10-day period following the declaration of results.

His petition accuses the Electoral Commission of failing to organise a free and fair election and alleges widespread illegalities, violence, voter bribery, misuse of state resources, failure to gazette polling stations, lack of transparency in vote counting and result transmission, and partisan conduct by state security agencies.

Kasibante is asking the Supreme Court to nullify President Museveni’s election, cancel the declared results, and order fresh elections to be conducted in strict compliance with the law. He also seeks orders invalidating results from polling stations he claims were unlawfully established, directing a comprehensive audit of election materials, and awarding him the costs of the petition.

The Supreme Court is set to hear some applications arising from this petition starting tomorrow, Wednesday.

Since 2001, every presidential election has been challenged in court, including petitions filed by Dr Kizza Besigye, former prime minister Amama Mbabazi, and Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu following the 2021 election.

In each instance, the Supreme Court acknowledged the existence of irregularities but upheld the declared results, saying they couldn’t affect the final outcome in a substantial manner.

***

URN