A critical analysis of electoral offences as a ground for setting aside presidential and parliamentary elections in Uganda

Abstract

The practice of holding regular elections in Uganda is provided for under the 1995 Constitution and has been entrenched after a long period of disenfranchisement. As a result, the country has held presidential and parliamentary elections every after five years since 1996. Specifically, in all the presidential elections held in 1996, 2001, 2006, 2011,2016 and 2021, President Museveni and his National Resistance Movement (NRM) party was declared winner. Museveni’s competitors have challenged the outcome of all the elections declared by the Electoral Commission and went to court in 2001, 2006, 2016 and 2021. On the other hand, Parliamentary Election results have always been challenged in court. All Presidential and Parliamentary Elections held under the 1995 Constitution have been characterised by election offences such as voter bribery, ballot stuffing, intimidation among others. The contemporary practice is that political candidates of all shades, upon failure to settle the direct electoral political contestations, shift the burden to the courts of law for a final say. An analysis of the post-1995 constitutional and domestic legal framework under which the president of Uganda and Members of Parliament are elected reveals that it is deficient in facilitating fair political contestation and in promoting democracy. This is mainly because presidential electoral laws make it almost impossible to challenge the outcome of the election, particularly when the incumbent is declared victorious. It is also the position of this thesis that due to the inadequate legal framework, election offences continue to be committed during presidential and parliamentary elections. In investigating election offences as a ground for setting aside Presidential and Parliamentary elections in Uganda, this thesis discussed the international, regional and national legal frameworks and how courts have approached election offences. The thesis also offers a comparative analysis of five countries (Ghana, India, Kenya, Pakistan and Nigeria). These countries have been very progressive in handling election offences as a way of protecting the integrity of their elections. This thesis offered recommendations for legal and policy reforms including; the need to amend election laws to the effect that whoever commits an election offence is disqualified from contesting for public office in subsequent elections in addition to nullifying their elections.