Confidence Erosion In Uganda’s Electoral Process: Irregularities, De-Nominations, And Administrative Competence Crisis

By Fredrick E. S. Mutengeesa

The credibility of any democratic system rests fundamentally on the integrity of its electoral processes. In Uganda, the Electoral Commission (EC) is constitutionally mandated to organise, conduct and supervise elections in a manner that is free, fair, transparent and accountable.

However, events surrounding the ongoing electoral cycle towards the 2026 general elections have generated deep national concern, particularly regarding candidate nominations, subsequent de-nominations, and the conduct of District Returning Officers (DROs).

A growing pattern has emerged in which candidates are duly nominated by District Returning Officers, publicly declared eligible, and in some cases even commence campaigns, only to be denominated later by the Electoral Commission.

This phenomenon has exposed alarming weaknesses in electoral administration, raised questions of legality and intent, and seriously undermined public trust in the institutions charged with safeguarding the democracy.

The Legal and Constitutional Mandate of the Electoral Commission

Under Article 60 and 61 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda (1995), the Electoral Commission is entrusted with the responsibility to;

a) Organise, conduct and supervise all elections and referenda;

b) Ensure that elections are free, fair and transparent;

c) Hear and determine electoral complaints arising before and during polling;

d) Declare election results in accordance with the law;

e) Ensure compliance with electoral laws by all election officials.

The Electoral Commission Act (Cap. 140) further operationalises this mandate, vesting authority in the Commission to appoint Returning Officers, Presiding Officers and other election officials, while holding it accountable for their training, supervision and conduct.

Crucially, the law presumes that District Returning Officers are competent, impartial and legally proficient, given the enormous discretion and authority they wield, particularly during the nomination stage.

What Is Expected of District Returning Officers

District Returning Officers are not mere clerks. They are quasi-judicial officers at the first point of contact in the electoral process.

Their responsibilities include:

Receiving and scrutinising nomination papers* to ensure full compliance with constitutional and statutory requirements;
Verifying academic qualifications, supporter signatures and identity documentation;

Rejecting defective nominations at the point of submission, not retroactively;

Guiding candidates accurately on legal requirements and correcting errors before nomination closure;
Declaring nominations transparently and lawfully, with written records;
Safeguarding the integrity of the process to avoid unnecessary disputes, litigation and public confusion.

Failure at this stage has far-reaching consequences.

The Nakawa Division West Case: A Window into Administrative Confusion

The Nakawa Division West parliamentary nomination dispute stands out as one of the most instructive examples of administrative inconsistency and poor procedural clarity.

Several candidates, including the incumbent MP and Leader of the Opposition, were nominated by the Kampala District Returning Officer. Subsequently, a petition was lodged by fellow aspirant Ivan Bwowe, arguing that the nomination papers of other candidates referenced a non-existent constituency, “Nakawa West” instead of the legally gazetted “Nakawa Division West”.

Although the Electoral Commission ultimately dismissed the petition and upheld the nominations, the case revealed serious institutional weaknesses:

How did official nomination documents carry an incorrect or ambiguous constituency name in the first place?

Why was such a fundamental legal detail not standardized and enforced by the District Returning Officer?

Why did the EC only clarify the issue after a formal petition, rather than proactively?

While the EC treated the matter as a “clerical error,” the incident demonstrated that District Returning Officers may not be exercising adequate legal diligence.

Had the Commission ruled differently, multiple candidates would have been unlawfully excluded, purely due to administrative negligence.

The Nakawa case therefore, exemplifies how poor nomination management creates legal uncertainty, political tension and reputational damage to the EC.

De-Nomination Cases: When Administrative Failure Turns into Democratic Injury

More troubling than Nakawa are cases where the EC actually de-nominated candidates after they had been cleared by Returning Officers:

Mathias Walukagga (Busiro East) nominated, later de-nominated over alleged academic qualification expiry;

Ntanda Shalif (Isingiro North) cleared, later removed due to allegedly insufficient or invalid supporter signatures;

Ategeka Christopher (Buyanja County) nominated, then de-nominated over altered nomination forms;

Elizabeth Kakwanzi (Youth MP, Western Region) initially accepted, later de-nominated over forgery allegations.

In all these cases, the Returning Officers failed at the primary verification stage.

The EC only intervened later often after complaints, political pressure or public outcry.

This raises fundamental questions;

Why were these candidates nominated in the first place?

Were Returning Officers incompetent, careless, compromised or acting under influence?

Why should the burden of administrative failure fall on candidates and voters?

Impact of De-Nomination on Democracy and Public Trust

The de-nomination phenomenon has had severe consequences;

Erosion of Public Confidence

Repeated reversals create the impression of a chaotic, unreliable and possibly manipulated system. Citizens lose faith when rules appear fluid and selectively enforced.

Disenfranchisement of Voters

When candidates are removed late, voters are denied meaningful choice. In some constituencies, de-nominations have resulted in unopposed candidates, effectively nullifying the electorate’s democratic power.

Waste of Taxpayers’ Money

Ugandans fund the Electoral Commission through taxes. These funds are meant to deliver efficient, lawful and credible elections, not repeated litigation, administrative corrections and avoidable disputes. Every court case arising from EC negligence is a *direct financial loss to the taxpayer.

Institutional Damage

Each de-nomination exposes systemic weaknesses and damages the EC’s credibility nationally and internationally. An electoral body perceived as inconsistent cannot command respect or legitimacy.

Is the System Corrupted, Manipulated, or Simply Incompetent?

While corruption must be proven, the pattern of events raises legitimate suspicion:

Disproportionate impact on opposition and independent candidates;

Selective enforcement of technicalities;

Late interventions by the EC after DRO approvals;

Lack of disciplinary action against errant Returning Officers.

Whether by design or dysfunction, the outcome is the same:

A compromised electoral process.

The absence of visible corrective measures such as suspending, retraining or prosecuting negligent District Returning Officers suggests institutional complacency, if not tacit approval.

Government Responsibility and Silence

Given that elections are a sovereign function of the state, the government bears ultimate responsibility to ensure that the Electoral Commission operates effectively. The continued silence and lack of decisive intervention raises concerns that:

Administrative failures are being tolerated;

Public accountability is weak;

Electoral integrity is being sacrificed for political convenience.

This failure of oversight compounds the crisis.

A Call for Urgent Electoral Reform

Uganda cannot afford elections marred by administrative incompetence, legal ambiguity and public mistrust.

To restore confidence, the following are imperative:

Mandatory legal certification and rigorous training for all District Returning Officers;
Early and final verification of nomination documents, with zero tolerance for post-nomination reversals;
Personal accountability and sanctions for officials whose negligence causes de-nominations;
Independent audits of nomination processes;
Transparency and timely communication by the EC.

Democracy is not merely about voting, it is about process, fairness and trust. Ugandans deserve an electoral system that respects their taxes, their intelligence and their constitutional rights.

Until the nomination crisis is decisively addressed, every election outcome will remain clouded by doubt.

The writer is a Ugandan