Over the years, the public has been reminding government to heed to the doctrine of separation of powers in vain. When a serving judicial officer is hand-picked to serve outside the judiciary, they are tempted to make orders as if they were in court. That is why legal minds were opposed to Justice Simon Byabakama’s appointment to head the Electoral commission (EC).
His conduct so far is of a man who is slowly but surely getting out of touch with the very law that he was trained to interpret and enforce. Byabakama needs to remember that he is not serving the commission as a judge but as a public servant and may need to seek guidance from the Solicitor General before taking certain decisions.
He also needs to be aware that after his tenure at the EC, he will go back to serve as a justice of the Court of Appeal or the Supreme and as such needs to act in a manner that will earn him trust as a judicial officer and not as a cadre of the ruling party. He cannot therefore argue that his order to the public to keep off polling stations after voting is in good faith.
Byabakama’s statement was not a request but a directive and follows an earlier caution by the Uganda People Defence Forces (UPDF) to voters against camping around polling stations after casting their votes; warning that those who defy the order will be dealt with. Was it even necessary for the army to sound the warning and not the police? The phrase “dealt with” when made by the army can only be construed as instilling fear and voter intimidation.
Byabakama also warned that those who defy his orders will be picked like grasshoppers insisting that the directive is necessary to maintain order during the highly charged political environment ahead of the January 15, 2026 elections. With the current rising tensions, the EC claims it is taking proactive steps to prevent incidents that could escalate into violence.
Now that Security organs have been asked to implement the directive, the question that now stands unanswered is whether or not the order is not a threat to voters’ rights to peacefully observe vote counting as has been the norm in the past elections. It is my considered view that Byabakama’s orders are not only irrational but portray him as having ill motives.
It emerged that his orders were triggered by the National Unity Platform party’s call for a ‘protest vote’ asking members to cast their vote and keep at the polling station until the end of the process as well as escorting the votes to the tally centre. This call is in tandem with the law which allows the public to stay within a distance of 20 meters from the voting table.
Such orders read together with those of the army could be a green light to law enforcer to determine who stays and who goes home. I can predict a clash between security organs and constitutional safeguards enshrined under the law on elections. The two stern directives appear to have been planned and agreed upon by both the EC and security.
We all understanding that organizing credible elections is a difficult task that requires wisdom more so when the “referee of the game is appointed by one of the players”. Whatever the referee does can be mistaken as benefiting the appointing authority. The EC should thus not forget that they are mandated to manage elections efficiently, impartially and transparently.
I have no doubts in my mind that the orders risk creating an atmosphere of fear around polling stations and could discourage ordinary citizens from exercising their democratic rights. Even the phrase “picked like grasshoppers” points to a readiness to use force against those who will defy the orders as given by the army and the Electoral Commission.
To Byabakama, the directives are preventive measures designed to avert chaos; reminding eligible voters that during previous elections, tensions around polling stations resulted in clashes, destruction of property, and disrupted vote counting. To him, voters quitting the polling station after casting their ballots will reduce the likelihood of disorder and allow security agencies to maintain calm throughout the election period.
The EC chairman also emphasized his point that while his orders may have sounded intimidating to some, he said it applies fairly and equally to all citizens. The ultimate goal, he said, is to protect voters and ensure that election results are determined peacefully, without interference from crowds or partisan groups loitering near polling centres.
Just the other day, we saw videos of candidate Museveni’s supporters clad in portraited yellow T-shirts disembarking from a Police truck to attend his rally. If these are the men that Byabakama is referring to as security, then Kyagulanyi is right in encouraging voters to stay around to keep a keen eye on the process from beginning to the end.
If the Electoral Commission intends to assert control over a tense election environment by relying on the partisan police and the army, we are doomed. When faced with heightened political polarization, repeated allegations of biased policing, and rising public mistrust in institutions, it is wrong to keep the public in the dark as it has been stressed that violating the orders even those that appear minor, will be handled swiftly and decisively.
If the EC fails to strike a balance between maintaining order and upholding citizens’ rights, their plan to rely on security could backfire leading to resentment and could spark conflicts on election day and the aftermath. Ensuring transparency while managing crowds will be crucial for maintaining public confidence in the integrity of the voting process.
The reactions so far suggest that the order to go home “immediately” after voting has already sent wrong signals and suspicions to some players. I personally believe that some political parties may not have agents at every polling station due to financial constraints and as such may wish to use the general public as a shield against malpractices.
Truth be told, when the opposition tell their members to remain at the polling stations after voting, they are expressing a lack of trust in the EC and security hence the reliance on the public to monitor the voting process remotely. The data obtained from the ground can then be used to verify what will be disseminated by the newly imported biometric machines.
I do not know why the EC does not want to carry out research but it is psychologically satisfying for voters to leave a polling station having witnessed their candidate fail than to be told by a third party where they expect a win. Enticing such a person to join bandwagon protests becomes eminent knowing the voters did not scrutinize the process.
As we get closer to the electoral year, the EC and security agencies need to navigate their actions very consciously. Voters will not exercise patience and follow official instructions if they do not trust the systems mandated to manage elections. I personally do see how the EC can implement their directive while at the same time safeguarding democratic rights.
Such orders if not pushed down can have a bearing on the quality and integrity of the electoral processes. We cannot forget that having a flawless and impartial voting process is nothing without trust. Now that Kyagulanyi has refused to back down on his protest vote slogan, we could have a curfew imposed a day before the 2026 general election to justify the illegal orders of forcing voters to stay home after voting.
Wadada Rogers is a commentator on political, legal and social issues. wadroger@yahoo.ca
