Guidelines for handling electoral disputes in the offing – Judiciary

KAMPALA - To effectively handle electoral disputes after the 2026 general elections, the Judiciary is developing a comprehensive and practical manual that will be used to train judicial officers and other actors involved in election dispute resolution.

According to the Judiciary, the training manual and facilitator’s guide will provide a structured framework for training judicial officers, enabling consistent understanding and application of the law and procedure in electoral matters.

It also seeks to strengthen judicial preparedness and harmonise approaches across different levels of courts.

By guiding judicial officers in procedural efficiency, best practices, and timely resolutions, the Deputy Chief Justice, Dr Flavian Zeija, said the manual will directly enhance their effectiveness in handling electoral disputes, thereby fulfilling their constitutional duty without compromise.

“As we are all aware, elections are the cornerstone of democratic governance. However, they often generate disputes that require the Judiciary to act promptly, with utmost integrity, impartiality, and efficiency,” explained Zeija.

He added, “If you watch the current news regarding political campaigns, it provides insight into potential areas of post-election contestation. These include allegations of malpractice, disputes over vote counting and tallying, candidates’ qualification challenges, social media and defamation issues, among others.”

According to Zeija, the credibility of the entire electoral process, in the event of disputes, depends significantly on how fairly, expeditiously, and transparently such disputes are resolved.

He emphasised that this aligns directly with the Judiciary’s constitutional mandate under Article 128 of the Constitution, which vests judicial power in the courts to interpret and apply the law independently, without fear or favour, and to administer justice fairly and efficiently.

Since it is judicial officers who interpret and apply the law, Zeija called for deliberate and continuous training as the foundation of preparedness.

“We cannot be truly expeditious in resolving electoral disputes, as Article 128 demands, unless we first equip every judicial officer from the magistrate handling a local council petition to the justice sitting in the Supreme Court, with knowledge, practical skills, and unified approaches to deliver justice confidently and consistently,” noted Zeija.

He made the remarks during the validation meeting of the draft training manual and curriculum on the resolution of election disputes, organised by the Judicial Training Institute at the Court of Appeal in Kampala on November 7, 2025.

The meeting attracted justices of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court judges, development partners, magistrates, registrars, and members of the Uganda Law Society.

Participants discussed and reviewed the content of the training manual to ensure it reflects the practical realities and jurisprudence in electoral dispute resolution.
The development of the training manual and curriculum was supported by the Government and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

According to judicial officers, areas that the Human Rights and Peace Centre (HURIPEC) needs to address include the people aspect, taxation of costs arising from election disputes, audit of electronic gadgets used in electoral processes, adjudication of disputes from special interest groups, additional work on affidavit evidence, the substantiality test, and amicus curiae, among others.

Addressing judicial officers and development partners, Zeija commended the Taskforce Committee under the leadership of Justice Mike Chibita for providing oversight to the HURIPEC team that drafted the manual and training guide.

Judicial officers interacting during the validation meeting of the draft training manual and curriculum on the resolution of election disputes resolution organized by the Judicial Training Institute at the Court of Appeal in Kampala on November 07, 2025. (Credit: Juliet Kasirye)

He also praised the Judicial Training Institute for advancing judicial capacity building, saying the structured approach will allow the Judiciary to move away from ad hoc training and establish predictable, high-impact programmes tailored for different judicial officers, including training on electoral petitions.

Zeija’s remarks were delivered by the then Acting Principal Judge, Justice Jane Okuo Kajuga.

According to Justice Muzamiru Kibeedi, the manual represents more than just a compilation of procedures and case law; it is a reaffirmation of the Judiciary’s readiness to uphold the rule of law, protect electoral integrity, and foster public confidence in the democratic process.

Kibeedi said: “By equipping judicial officers with knowledge and skills to handle electoral disputes efficiently and impartially, we strengthen not only the justice system, but also the foundations of our democracy.”

Stakeholders speak out

Justice Christine Kaahwa noted that many of those who will handle these petitions are either young or new judicial officers who have not dealt with such cases before.

“You are given little time to handle very sensitive matters. There is a lot of pressure from your court and from the outside. Don’t underestimate some of those things that appear to be on the periphery, but they impact. We need to prepare the judicial officers so that they learn how to handle these petitions. For instance, you are sent to Mubende and given three or two months to handle three petitions,” explained Kaahwa.

To effectively manage electoral disputes, Carol Ddembe, a Judicial Training Institute trainer under access to justice, emphasised the need for caution, case studies, and practical scenarios to help judicial officers understand the core of the problem.

Alex Luganda, an advocate, raised concerns about recent technological advancements, such as the introduction of the Electronic Court Case Management Information System (ECCMIS).

He noted that while some courts are already using ECCMIS, other parts of the country are not yet upgraded, yet there are strict timelines for filing, pleadings, and service on the opposite parties.

“The interpretation we are getting from the ECCMIS regulations and precedents of the case file available are that the moment both parties are linked into the system, the moment it’s uploaded, it’s presumed served. How do we reconcile this with the legislative provision on electoral governance vis-à-vis the fact that there is no proper standard on ECCMIS in the whole country?” asked Ddembe.