Why court has dismissed petition seeking to halt 2026 General Election

________________

The Supreme Court has dismissed a bid by concerned citizen Patrick Mukisa to block the 2026 general elections scheduled for January 15, 2026.

Mukisa had petitioned the Supreme Court seeking to halt the 2026 presidential, parliamentary, and local government elections, citing the Electoral Commission’s (EC) failure to enact and implement recommendations issued by the same court following the 2016 presidential election petition involving former Prime Minister Amama Mbabazi and President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni.

In a petition filed on December 12, 2025, against the Attorney General, Electoral Commission (EC) and Museveni Yoweri Kaguta, Mukisa also sought nullification of the 2021 general elections and dissolution of the Government elected therein.

However, the nine Supreme Court justices, led by Lillian Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza on Monday (January 12) dismissed Mukisa’s petition, ruling that the court has no power to hear pre-election disputes.

Other Justices on the panel are Mike Chibita, Stephen Musota, Christopher Madrama Izama, Catherine Bamugemereire, Monica Mugenyi and Muzamiru Mutangula Kibeedi.

The justices explained that Article 132 of the Constitution establishes the Court primarily as an appellate court, the final arbiter of appeals from the Court of Appeal.

Tibatemwa Ekirikubinza said the primary role of the Supreme Court under Article 132 (2) and (3) is to hear appeals.

“The only original jurisdiction the Supreme Court possesses is that conferred by Article 104 regarding presidential elections. This has created a rigid jurisdictional binary,” she said.

According to the justices, if a matter is a presidential election petition filed by a candidate, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in the matter.

“If the matter is anything else, including a pre-election dispute filed by a voter, the Supreme Court can only hear it in the exercise of any prescribed appellate jurisdiction,” Tibatemwa Ekirikubinza stated.

The justices said if a party is dissatisfied with the EC's decision on a pre-polling complaint, the recourse is not to the Supreme Court. They said under section 15(2) of the Electoral Commission Act, a decision of the Commission may be appealed to the High Court.

They explained that Article 61(2) of the Constitution commands the EC to hold presidential elections within the first 30 days of the last 122 days before the expiry of the term, saying it is a mandatory constitutional duty.

The justices stated that a court order barring the election would essentially order the EC to violate Article 61(2) of the Constitution.

“Courts have no jurisdiction to issue injunctions that compel the violation of the Constitution,” Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza said.

The justices also observed that the third respondent (Museveni) is the sitting President of the Republic of Uganda who enjoys presidential immunity while in office under the Constitution. In the premises, they ruled that he was improperly sued.