Chief Muzukkulu Namyalo Praises Judiciary As Supreme Court Dismisses Bid To Halt 2026 Elections

By Frank Kamuntu 

The Supreme Court of Uganda has dismissed an application filed by a one Mukisa Patrick that sought to suspend the 2026 general elections and enforce recommendations and orders arising from the landmark 2016 presidential election petition between former Prime Minister Amama Mbabazi and President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni.

Mukisa appeared in person and represented himself, while the respondents were represented by senior counsel from K&K Advocates; Edwin Karugire, Sebuufu Usaama, and Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka.

In a unanimous ruling delivered on January 12, 2026, the court held that Mukisa lacked the legal standing to invoke the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction and that the court had no constitutional mandate to hear or grant the reliefs he sought. The decision was anchored on two preliminary points of law: whether the applicant had the locus standi to bring the matter before the court, and whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear a pre-election dispute of that nature.

According to the chamber summons and supporting affidavit, Mukisa, who was not a candidate in the 2016 or 2021 elections, asked the court to issue an interim injunction staying the 2026 presidential, parliamentary and local government elections until all the recommendations and orders made by the Supreme Court in the 2016 Mbabazi petition and a related 2019 application were fully implemented. He further sought declarations to disqualify certain candidates and would-be candidates whose participation, in his view, allegedly contravened those recommendations.

In one of the most far-reaching prayers, Mukisa asked the court to declare the 2021 general elections unconstitutional, illegal, null and void, to dissolve the government elected from those polls, and to order the establishment of an interim government to run the country until fresh elections are organized. He also sought orders directing the respondents, the Attorney General, the Electoral Commission and President Museveni, to file comprehensive inventories of their offices, and requested that they be cited for contempt and other serious constitutional violations.

Mukisa argued that he was bringing the application as a “concerned citizen and whistle-blower,” despite not having been a party to the original 2016 petition. He relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s recommendations issued in the Mbabazi case, which had called for wide-ranging electoral reforms, including extending timelines for election petitions, ensuring equal access to state media, regulating campaign donations by incumbents, restricting involvement of public officers in campaigns, and establishing mechanisms to ensure implementation of court recommendations.

However, the Supreme Court firmly rejected the application, clarifying that Article 104 of the Constitution narrowly grants the court original jurisdiction only in post-election presidential petitions filed by aggrieved candidates after declaration of results. The justices held that Mukisa, as a voter and non-candidate, did not qualify as an “aggrieved party” under the Constitution and could not approach the court either as a litigant or as a friend of court, since there was no pending matter in which he had been admitted as amicus curiae.

The court further ruled that it has no power to hear pre-election disputes in its original jurisdiction, noting that such matters fall within the mandate of the Electoral Commission. Any dissatisfaction with the Commission’s decisions, the court emphasized, is appealable to the High Court, not the Supreme Court. The justices also underscored that courts cannot issue injunctions stopping elections, as Article 61 of the Constitution imposes a mandatory duty on the Electoral Commission to conduct elections within prescribed timelines.

Additionally, the proceedings against President Museveni were struck out, with the court reiterating that a sitting President enjoys constitutional immunity while in office. The application was consequently dismissed in its entirety, with no order as to costs, and a detailed ruling is to be uploaded on the court’s electronic system.

Reacting to the decision, the Manager of the Office of the National Chairman (ONC), Hajjat Hadijah Namyalo, welcomed the ruling, describing it as a victory for constitutionalism and democracy.

“Stopping elections would have taken away Ugandans’ constitutional right to vote,” Namyalo said. “By dismissing this case, the court has protected the little we have constitutionally as Ugandans and reaffirmed our democratic freedoms.”

She urged citizens to remain focused on peaceful participation in the forthcoming polls, noting that the ruling reaffirmed stability, the rule of law, and the constitutional order governing Uganda’s electoral process.