Imagine a scenario where a significant portion of the population is silenced, their voices unheard in the very process that shapes their lives. This is the core issue at the heart of a legal battle brewing in Uganda. Human rights lawyer Omega Aloyo is taking a stand, aiming to halt the preparations for the 2026 elections. Her argument? The Electoral Commission (EC) is allegedly violating the constitutional rights of prisoners by excluding them from voting. But why is this happening, and what are the implications? Let’s dive in.
Aloyo’s legal action, filed in the High Court, seeks to prevent the 2026 general elections from proceeding unless the EC includes prisoners in the voting process. She accuses the EC of maintaining a ‘persistent and unconstitutional pattern of disenfranchisement,’ specifically, failing to register or facilitate voting for prisoners, despite the clear constitutional guarantees.
The Foundation of the Argument: Aloyo’s case rests on Article 59 of the Constitution, which grants every citizen aged 18 and above the right and duty to vote. She emphasizes that incarceration does not strip individuals of their civic identity, adding that the purpose of imprisonment is rehabilitation, not exclusion from democratic participation.
She poses a powerful question in her filing: “Can Uganda claim to be a democracy while excluding an entire class of its citizens from the ballot box?” She warns that the ongoing exclusion undermines the legitimacy of national elections.
The Numbers Speak Volumes: According to the August 2025 Monthly Statistical Abstract of the Uganda Prisons Service, the country has 78,819 prisoners, including pre-trial detainees who haven’t been convicted of any offense. This group includes women, persons with disabilities, and others whose lives are directly impacted by the policies enacted by elected leaders. Aloyo argues that denying them the right to vote contradicts Uganda’s democratic ideals and violates the Constitution’s principles of equality and non-discrimination.
A Precedent Ignored? Aloyo’s case leans heavily on the High Court’s 2020 decision in Kalali Steven v Attorney General and Electoral Commission. The court declared that prisoners have an inalienable right to vote, and their exclusion was “illegal, discriminatory, and unconstitutional.” The Court even stated that prison facilities could be used as voter registration and polling stations.
But here’s where it gets controversial… Despite this ruling, Aloyo claims the EC has not implemented the judgment, which she describes as “a direct affront to constitutional democracy.” She argues that elections are not merely procedural exercises but central expressions of the people’s sovereignty under Article 1 of the Constitution. Excluding tens of thousands of citizens, she says, weakens electoral legitimacy and public confidence in democratic institutions.
The Demands: Aloyo is asking the Court to order the EC to immediately facilitate prisoner voting, declare their exclusion unconstitutional and illegal, and bar the Commission from conducting the 2026 elections without including prisoners. She also seeks an interim order temporarily halting election preparations until the EC demonstrates full compliance with the Constitution and the Kalali ruling.
The Big Picture: This case places renewed scrutiny on the EC and the judiciary as Uganda gears up for the 2026 polls. The outcome could significantly impact the integrity of the elections and the very definition of democracy in the country.
What do you think? Do you agree with Aloyo’s stance, or are there valid reasons for excluding prisoners from the voting process? Should the EC be compelled to include prisoners, or are there practical challenges that need to be considered? Share your thoughts in the comments below!