KAMPALA. The Supreme Court has dismissed an application seeking to halt the high stake Thursday General Election.
The decision was delivered in a brief ruling read by Justice Christopher Madurama on behalf of a seven-member bench comprising Prof Lillian Tibatemwa, Mike Chibita, Catherine Bamugemereire, Muzamiru Kibendi, Anna Mugenyi and Stephen Musota.
The case was filed by Patrick Mukisa against the Attorney General, the Electoral Commission and President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni.
The applicant sought wide-ranging declarations, including orders stopping the conduct of elections, nullifying the results of an earlier general election, dissolving the government formed from it, and establishing an interim administration.
Court records indicate that the Electoral Commission opposed the application, and that all respondents consented to the Commission’s affidavit in reply being adopted as their joint response.
In its ruling, the court first addressed the question of jurisdiction. Justice Madurama stated that the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of appeals and limits the scope of its original jurisdiction.
“The exercise of original jurisdiction by this court is specifically provided for presidential election petitions filed by candidates after a declaration of results,” Justice Madurama ruled.
He explained that while the Supreme Court enjoys inherent jurisdiction, such authority cannot be exercised in a manner that contradicts the Constitution or statutory law.
“The Supreme Court enjoys inherent jurisdiction, but that jurisdiction cannot be invoked to injunct an election process where the dispute is pre-election in nature,” the ruling stated.
The bench found that the issues raised by the applicant were pre-election matters and therefore could not be entertained by the Supreme Court. Justice Madurama emphasised that elections, particularly presidential elections, are a mandatory constitutional duty.
“To bar an election would amount to stopping a mandatory constitutional obligation,” he said.
The court further addressed the applicant’s request to be admitted as a friend of the court.
Justice Madurama ruled that the applicant did not qualify for such admission.
“The applicant does not qualify to be a friend of the court as he is not admitted, and there is no matter pending before this court that would permit such admission,” he ruled.
The court added that a friend of the court must be a neutral party and can only be admitted where there is a properly constituted matter before the court.
The Supreme Court also considered the applicant’s standing to bring the application. It held that post-election matters are time-bound and must be brought by parties recognised under the Constitution and electoral laws, particularly aggrieved candidates in presidential election petitions.
On the issue of the third respondent, the court noted that President Museveni is a sitting president. Justice Madurama held that under the Constitution, a sitting president enjoys immunity from proceedings of the nature brought before the court.
“In the circumstances, the third respondent is a sitting president and enjoys immunity. The proceedings against him are struck out,” he ruled.
Having addressed the preliminary issues of jurisdiction, locus standi and immunity, the Supreme Court dismissed the application in its entirety.
“The application is incompetent and is accordingly dismissed,” Justice Madurama concluded.
Following the ruling, Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka addressed questions regarding the implementation of earlier court recommendations on electoral matters, including prisoners voting rights and Ugandans living in the diaspora.
Mr Kiwanuka said the laws of Uganda provide that elections are conducted in gazetted areas where there is access to the general population.
“The laws of Uganda allow elections to be conducted in gazetted areas where there is access to other people,” Kiwanuka said.
He added that prisoners who wish to vote may apply to the courts for permission to participate in the electoral process.
On the issue of diaspora voting, the Attorney General said Ugandans living abroad are free to return home to exercise their right to vote within the existing legal framework.
He noted that the current laws do not prevent citizens from voting once they are physically present in the country.
The Supreme Court did not issue any further orders beyond dismissing the application and striking out the proceedings against the sitting president.
The ruling reaffirmed the limits of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in electoral disputes and underscored that challenges to elections must follow the procedures and timelines set out in the Constitution and the electoral laws.