Former presidential candidate Robert Kasibante has petitioned the Supreme Court, challenging President Yoweri Museveni’s victory in the 2026 general election, citing widespread irregularities, violence, voter bribery, and failure by the Electoral Commission (EC) to conduct a free and fair poll.
Museveni was declared winner after garnering nearly eight million votes, defeating opposition leader Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu, who secured just under three million votes. The remaining six candidates shared a small fraction of the total vote.
The petition, filed within the constitutional timeline, was lodged on Monday by Kasibante, who contested on the National Peasants Party ticket. It is brought against President Museveni, the National Resistance Movement (NRM) flag bearer, the Electoral Commission, and the Attorney General, following a race that attracted eight candidates.
Kasibante says he is aggrieved by Museveni’s declaration as the duly elected president, arguing that the entire electoral process was marred by widespread illegalities, electoral offences, and non-compliance with the law, which he says substantially affected the final outcome.
The presidential election was held on January 15, 2026, and the Electoral Commission declared Museveni the winner two days later after announcing an overwhelming majority of the vote. Under Article 104 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine presidential election petitions, which must be filed within 10 days of the declaration of results.
Legal experts note that the formal gazettement of results is an administrative step and does not bar a petitioner from filing a challenge once results have been officially declared.
In his petition, Kasibante accuses the Electoral Commission of failing in its constitutional duty to organise a free and fair election, alleging that it lacked independence and acted under the influence of the president, ruling party officials, and other state actors. He claims this resulted in systematic bias against opposition candidates, selective enforcement of electoral laws, and unfair resolution of election-related disputes.
He further alleges that the campaign and election period were characterised by widespread violence, intimidation, and harassment of opposition candidates and their supporters, often involving state security agencies, particularly the police and the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF).
Kasibante claims he and his supporters were attacked on several occasions during campaign activities, including incidents involving teargas and physical assaults by security personnel. He also cites disruptions of campaign events involving other opposition candidates across the country and alleges that several opposition supporters lost their lives during the election period.
Kasibante holds President Museveni, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, responsible for the conduct of the UPDF and other security agencies, which he claims acted in a partisan manner in favour of the incumbent. He alleges that the army interfered with campaign activities, issued unlawful directives to voters, and created an atmosphere of fear that undermined free political participation.
The petition also raises allegations of widespread corruption, voter bribery, and improper inducement. Kasibante accuses the incumbent and his agents of distributing money and other material benefits to influence voters, particularly in major urban centres, and claims that large sums of public money were channelled to various groups during the campaign period in violation of the Presidential Elections Act.
He further accuses the president of using abusive and derogatory language against rival candidates, conduct he says intimidated voters, distorted the level playing field, and discouraged open political competition.
Kasibante also challenges the use of state resources during the campaign, alleging that government vehicles, public institutions, and security agencies were deployed to support Museveni’s re-election bid. He claims that public officials facilitated mobilisation activities, transported supporters to rallies, and allowed exclusive use of public facilities by the incumbent, while denying similar access to opposition candidates. He further alleges that state-owned media gave disproportionate and favourable coverage to Museveni at the expense of his challengers.
Another key issue raised is the alleged failure by the Electoral Commission to properly gazette a significant number of polling stations ahead of the election. Kasibante argues that voting at these stations was unlawful and that results from them should not have been included in the final tally because candidates and their agents were unable to adequately monitor the process.
He also questions the credibility of the voters’ register and the use of biometric voter verification machines, alleging that the technology lacked a clear legal framework, was unreliable, and was deployed without transparency. In addition, he claims that the processes of counting, tallying, and transmission of results were flawed and opaque.
Kasibante is asking the Supreme Court to nullify Museveni’s election, cancel the declared results, and order fresh elections conducted in strict compliance with the law. He also seeks orders invalidating results from unlawfully established polling stations, directing a comprehensive audit of election materials, and awarding him the costs of the petition.
The petition, which runs into more than 1,700 pages, was filed under the Constitution and the Presidential Elections Act and is supported by documentary and photographic evidence. It was lodged by a team of lawyers drawn from several law firms.
Kasibante’s challenge adds to a long line of presidential election petitions in Uganda. 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 case, the Supreme Court acknowledged the existence of irregularities but upheld the declared results, citing the high legal threshold required to overturn a presidential election.
The Supreme Court is constitutionally required to hear and determine the petition within 30 days of filing. The Electoral Commission has said it is yet to be formally served with the petition.
Meanwhile, NRM Director for Legal Services Counsel Enoch Barata said the ruling party had not yet received the petition filed against its party president. He noted, however, that the NRM is on standby with a team of 45 lawyers to defend Museveni’s victory should the president formally instruct them to do so. Court is expected to issue directions on the hearing of the matter in the coming days.
