2026 polls: Can technology deliver a credible election?

________________

Uganda’s electoral landscape has become an endless jigsaw puzzle. One piece is fitted, only for the other to demand reshaping.

Every election cycle in recent times has seen presidential front-runners or their parties locked in bitter debates about measures that should have guaranteed a free and fair vote. 

President Museveni speaks out

With the latest to raise alarm being President Yoweri Museveni of the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM). Museveni, while speaking at the Kampala Defence and Security Expo last year, accused the Opposition of exploiting loopholes in manual voting to reduce his vote share.

“I have now got all the evidence that in the last elections, NUP (National Unity Platform) cheated by one million votes. I have the facts, NUP can take me to court, and they say Museveni has falsely accused them…” Museveni alleged.

Biometric kits

And, just when things seemed unlikely to improve, Electoral Commission (EC) chairperson Simon Byabakama last week, while addressing journalists at Entebbe International Airport, announced the arrival of 60,000 biometric verification kits, which he said are going to be used for polling in the presidential, parliamentary and local government elections.

Before adding that the kits were an important factor in delivering what he termed to be a credible, peaceful, free and fair election.

“This is the first consignment we have received today. I would like to commend the contractor Simi Valley for having delivered on time as they promised, and we are sure that the remaining 40,000 something kits will also be in the country by the end of November,” Byabakama said. 

Tech as a silver bullet

However, while the technology promises greater accuracy, it finds itself in a Pandora’s box. With many political analysts questioning its implementation, reliability and human factor that can still tip the scales.

Leonard Ronald Egesa, a political and business strategist, while appearing on Vision Group’s Bukedde 2 Akabinkano talk show on Monday, November 3, 2025, said that although such technology can help avert some of the underlying concerns, it is not without flaws.

“In Kenya, we had an incident in 2022 where a single machine’s serial number was used to transmit results from both Bungoma in western Kenya and Mount Kenya… The argument was that it was a manufacturer's error,” Egesa said.

Adding that the only way to mitigate this is to keep all stakeholders informed at every step of the rollout.

It should be noted that Section 9 of Kenya’s Elections (Technology) Regulations of 2017 requires its electoral body to issue a public notice specifying the date, time and place of any technology testing and to invite stakeholders to attend.

Furthermore, the commission is required to publish this information on its website, electronic and print media of national circulation, displaying the notice outside the commission’s offices and using any other easily accessible mechanism.

Opposition reforms

The other sticking issue, Democratic Front secretary general Michael Mabikke said was the lack of enabling law that operationalises the technology. Citing that this ought to have been fixed by a litany of reforms, his principal and Nyendo-Mukungwe MP Mathias Mpuuga fronted this year.

On July 10, 2024, Mpuuga, without mentioning names, disclosed that he is consulting stakeholders.

“We support biometric technology as DF, but the key problem is the law. You cannot implement this technology without an enabling law. If it is there, cite it?” the former Makindye East lawmaker challenged.

An issue, he intimated, could have been addressed by a litany of reforms that his principal and Nyendo-Mukungwe MP, Mathias Mpuuga, tabled earlier this year. Unfortunately, he noted, many of the would-be beneficiaries, including NUP, downplayed them.

Section 140(1)(a) of the Electoral Commission (Amendment) Act 2020, stipulates that “The Commission may, in the exercise of its powers under subsection (1), adopt technology in the management of elections.”

Practicability

Another issue that has stakeholders, particularly those from the Opposition, like Kawempe North’s Erias Luyimbazi Nalukoola (NUP), in a spot of bother, is whether the technology can operate in an Internet blackout, as has been the case in previous elections.

“In various instances, these machines have malfunctioned, forcing officials to revert to manual voting. Even the ones that work are slow, handling only about 10 voters per hour. This means voting could grind to a halt in parishes like mine, where one parish can have about 10,000 voters,” Nalukoola said.

He added that the scary bit is that it is people who feed data into these machines, which could open the door to manipulation.

Lingering optimism

However, to East African Legislative Assembly (EALA) member and former Kabula County MP in the tenth Parliament, James Kakooza, the electoral situation is not as bad as it is often portrayed.

Speaking on the same talk show, Kakooza, a staunch NRM supporter, said the situation has improved. He noted that during the Electoral Commission’s 2001–2005 tenure, results were announced at the district level. But, under pressure from veteran opposition leader Dr Kiiza Besigye, an amendment was made to announce results at polling stations.

All said and done, the pressing question remains: Can technology, rather than humans, deliver a credible election?