By Isaac Ssemakadde,
This decision is a classic illustration of how formalism continues to masquerade as fidelity to the law in Uganda’s electoral jurisprudence.
The court insists almost ritualistically that an expired academic certificate at the time of nomination is fatal.
One is left wondering whether elections are meant to be contests of ideas and leadership, or clerical audits supervised by the Electoral Commission.
The judgment elevates administrative technicality above constitutional substance. Article 1 of the Constitution vests power in the people, not in expiry dates stamped on paper. Yet, time and again, our courts appear more comfortable protecting bureaucratic neatness than safeguarding the electorate’s right to choose leaders freely.
That said, the court is internally consistent. Once it accepts the premise that nomination requirements are rigid and unforgiving, the conclusion becomes inevitable. The Electoral Commission is vindicated, not because it acted democratically, but because it acted procedurally. This is the deeper tragedy: legality is confused for legitimacy.
The refusal to award costs is the quiet admission that the petition raised a genuine constitutional question.
Public importance is acknowledged but only after the petitioner is shown the exit. This pattern is familiar: courts recognize the importance of issues while declining to meaningfully develop the law around them.
The writer is the President of Uganda Law society
