Kampala, Uganda — Former Supreme Court Justice Esther Kitimbo Kisaakye has written a strongly worded public letter to the Chairperson and members of the Uganda Electoral Commission, questioning the legality, transparency and constitutional compliance of the declaration of the 2026 presidential election results.
In a message dated January 27, 2026, and addressed to Electoral Commission chairperson Simon Byabakama, Justice Kisaakye argues that the commission has failed to comply with Article 61(d) of the Constitution, which requires election results to be ascertained, published and declared in writing under the Commission’s seal.
She notes that although the presidential results were orally announced on January 17, no written declaration has been published either on the Electoral Commission’s official website or in the Uganda Gazette, the legally recognised instrument for official government notices.
“Announcements made through public media do not satisfy this constitutional requirement,” Kisaakye states, adding that the obligation must be read together with Article 1 of the Constitution, which vests sovereignty in the people of Uganda.
Questions on biometric failures and ballot integrity
In the letter, the former justice raises eight detailed questions demanding clarification from the Electoral Commission, focusing heavily on the integrity of the electoral process following the nationwide failure of biometric voter verification machines.
She asks how the Commission ensured there was no ballot stuffing or multiple voting in the absence of functioning biometric systems, and what steps have been taken to address videos circulating online that allegedly show election officials, security personnel and civilians ticking or stuffing multiple ballot papers at various locations.
Kisaakye further questions how presidential results were ascertained and declared within 48 hours without duly signed and transmitted Declaration of Results (DR) forms from individual polling stations.
The letter also challenges the credibility of the results transmission process during the nationwide internet shutdown imposed during the election period.
“How were the presidential election results transmitted to the National Tallying Centre during the nationwide internet shutdown,” she asks, “and what verifiable audit trail exists to demonstrate the integrity, chain of custody and authenticity of those results?”
She demands to know whether polling-station-level results have been published, where such publication can be accessed, and when it was made. If no such publication exists, she argues, the Commission is in breach of a “clear mandatory constitutional requirement” more than 10 days after the announcement of results.
Beyond the conduct of polling and tallying, Justice Kisaakye also raises accountability concerns over the reported failure of biometric equipment procured for the election.
She asks what steps the Electoral Commission is taking to recover approximately $69 million in taxpayers’ money spent on non-functioning biometric machines, including whether civil recovery actions are being pursued against suppliers or Commission officials involved in their procurement, approval and testing.
Writing in her capacity as a citizen of Uganda, Kisaakye stresses that the Electoral Commission bears a “positive and continuing duty” to conduct elections that are not only free and fair, but also transparent and verifiable.
She argues that where access to information has been restricted — as was the case during the internet shutdown — the burden to provide verifiable quantitative and qualitative data rests squarely with the Commission.
“Transparency in such circumstances is not discretionary. It is a constitutional obligation,” she writes, adding that the burden of proving compliance lies with the Electoral Commission, not candidates, voters or the wider public.
She concludes with a pointed reminder: “Elections belong to the people, not to those who administer them.”
The letter is signed off with the national motto, “For God and My Country,” and copied to the people of Uganda.
In a message dated January 27, 2026, and addressed to Electoral Commission chairperson Simon Byabakama, Justice Kisaakye argues that the commission has failed to comply with Article 61(d) of the Constitution, which requires election results to be ascertained, published and declared in writing under the Commission’s seal.
She notes that although the presidential results were orally announced on January 17, no written declaration has been published either on the Electoral Commission’s official website or in the Uganda Gazette, the legally recognised instrument for official government notices.
“Announcements made through public media do not satisfy this constitutional requirement,” Kisaakye states, adding that the obligation must be read together with Article 1 of the Constitution, which vests sovereignty in the people of Uganda.
Questions on biometric failures and ballot integrity
In the letter, the former justice raises eight detailed questions demanding clarification from the Electoral Commission, focusing heavily on the integrity of the electoral process following the nationwide failure of biometric voter verification machines.
She asks how the Commission ensured there was no ballot stuffing or multiple voting in the absence of functioning biometric systems, and what steps have been taken to address videos circulating online that allegedly show election officials, security personnel and civilians ticking or stuffing multiple ballot papers at various locations.
Kisaakye further questions how presidential results were ascertained and declared within 48 hours without duly signed and transmitted Declaration of Results (DR) forms from individual polling stations.
The letter also challenges the credibility of the results transmission process during the nationwide internet shutdown imposed during the election period.
“How were the presidential election results transmitted to the National Tallying Centre during the nationwide internet shutdown,” she asks, “and what verifiable audit trail exists to demonstrate the integrity, chain of custody and authenticity of those results?”
She demands to know whether polling-station-level results have been published, where such publication can be accessed, and when it was made. If no such publication exists, she argues, the Commission is in breach of a “clear mandatory constitutional requirement” more than 10 days after the announcement of results.
Beyond the conduct of polling and tallying, Justice Kisaakye also raises accountability concerns over the reported failure of biometric equipment procured for the election.
She asks what steps the Electoral Commission is taking to recover approximately $69 million in taxpayers’ money spent on non-functioning biometric machines, including whether civil recovery actions are being pursued against suppliers or Commission officials involved in their procurement, approval and testing.
Writing in her capacity as a citizen of Uganda, Kisaakye stresses that the Electoral Commission bears a “positive and continuing duty” to conduct elections that are not only free and fair, but also transparent and verifiable.
She argues that where access to information has been restricted — as was the case during the internet shutdown — the burden to provide verifiable quantitative and qualitative data rests squarely with the Commission.
“Transparency in such circumstances is not discretionary. It is a constitutional obligation,” she writes, adding that the burden of proving compliance lies with the Electoral Commission, not candidates, voters or the wider public.
She concludes with a pointed reminder: “Elections belong to the people, not to those who administer them.”
The letter is signed off with the national motto, “For God and My Country,” and copied to the people of Uganda.