Uganda is in the middle of an election cycle, with campaigns steadily ongoing at the presidential, parliamentary, and local council levels. While the general process has largely been orderly and the public continues to enjoy the campaign season, unfortunately, there have been reported isolated incidents of violence. The Electoral Commission, the Uganda Police Force, and other security agencies are working collaboratively to manage the situation in a manner satisfactory to all stakeholders.
However, the Electoral Commission cannot guarantee a fully peaceful and seamless electoral process if citizens, especially the principal actors in the elections, fail to adhere to established rules and guidelines. Continued violations of Electoral Commission guidelines by some presidential candidates have complicated efforts by both the Commission and the Uganda Police to ensure smooth and peaceful campaigns.
In recent weeks, the Uganda Police have been placed under intense public scrutiny, particularly regarding their handling of campaign activities for one presidential candidate, Robert Kyagulanyi, in locations such as Gulu City on December 6; Kawempe on November 24; Kiira on November 25; Kayunga on November 27; and Iganga on November 28, 2025. These incidents are highly regrettable.
Nonetheless, a closer examination suggests that such confrontations are likely to persist as long as the National Unity Platform (NUP) continues to disregard Electoral Commission guidelines. The party appears to be following a strategy similar to that once employed by former opposition leader Dr. Kizza Besigye, who openly advocated political defiance as a means of challenging President Yoweri Museveni’s leadership.
It is therefore important for social commentators, election observers, and peace-loving Ugandans to subject Kyagulanyi and his team to equal scrutiny and to ask critical questions about their persistent defiance of Electoral Commission regulations.
There is growing concern that Kyagulanyi and the NUP leadership may be deliberately violating these guidelines to provoke confrontations with the police, resulting in negative media coverage that they appear to embrace. NUP seems intent on portraying itself as a victim, potentially laying the groundwork for defiance should it suffer electoral defeat. Notably, the party has already announced a “protest vote,” a signal that it may reject the Electoral Commission’s final results.
The situation was further exacerbated when the NUP presidential candidate assembled his own security detail, which reportedly confronted individuals perceived to be opposed to the party, including police officers. Incidents in Lira and Abim on October 28 and 29, 2025, respectively, resulted in attacks on police personnel, damage to police vehicles, and injuries to officers.
In response, the police were compelled to adopt firmer measures to contain this emerging indiscipline. These developments appear to have been deliberately orchestrated to destabilise an otherwise peaceful electoral process.
All presidential candidates are provided with specialised anti-terrorism police protection, and their logistical requirements are funded by the Electoral Commission. There is therefore no justification for any candidate to establish private security groups or militias under the guise of protection.
The Electoral Commission guidelines clearly require peaceful arrivals and departures from agreed venues, the use of designated routes, avoidance of unauthorised rally locations such as markets and trading centres, and strict adherence to traffic regulations. These include prohibitions against reckless driving or riding, unsafe passenger practices, and processions along highways or within towns and cities.
A meeting between the Electoral Commission and representatives of all eight presidential candidates was held on December 3, 2025, at the Commission’s headquarters to harmonise positions on peaceful conduct and compliance with campaign guidelines. Despite this, continued defiance, particularly from the NUP camp, has persisted. For instance, the Gulu City confrontation arose after the presidential candidate refused to use an agreed police-designated route that was less than two kilometres from the rally venue. Insisting on passing through the city centre led to the ensuing disorder.
The Uganda Police Force has a duty to safeguard the rights and freedoms of both political actors and the general public, including hardworking citizens going about their daily activities. Any individual who breaches the law must be dealt with appropriately. This balance is delicate but essential, and neither interest can be pursued at the expense of the other. The government cannot suspend effective societal management simply because the country is in a campaign period.
Statements from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and sections of local and international media alleging that the Government of Uganda is employing repressive tactics against the opposition are misplaced. No country relinquishes its responsibility to protect citizens during election periods. Political competition must not override public order, as some actors may resort to violence in pursuit of victory and must therefore be restrained.
The country must remain peaceful and calm throughout this period, regardless of the status of any political actor. There must be zero disruption to daily life, particularly for investors and the business community whose stability is vital to national development.
The writer is the Ag. Executive Director
Uganda Media Centre