With nine days left to the 2026 general elections, the High Court has dismissed a case in which a human rights activist sought to compel the Electoral Commission (EC) to allow prisoners to vote.
Justice Bernard Namanya held that the application by Aloyo Nyeko Omega was barred by the legal doctrine of res judicata, meaning the court could not hear a case whose central issues had already been determined in a previous suit.
Aloyo Nyeko Omega, an activist, went to court arguing that prisoners in Uganda continue to be excluded from voting despite clear constitutional provisions and a previous High Court ruling affirming their right to vote.
In his application, Nyeko asked the court to issue an order of mandamus compelling the EC to organise voting for prisoners. He also sought declarations that the commission’s failure to do so was illegal, discriminatory and contemptuous of court authority.
He further asked the court to restrain the commission from conducting the 2026 general elections unless prisoners were facilitated to vote.
Nyeko based his case on Article 59 of the Constitution, which guarantees every Ugandan citizen aged 18 and above the right to vote, and on a 2020 High Court decision in Kalali Steven v Attorney General and Electoral Commission.
Nyeko accused the EC of deliberately ignoring both the Constitution and binding court orders.
He argued that the continued exclusion of prisoners from elections amounted to unlawful discrimination and a violation of their fundamental rights.
Nyeko also told court that the commission’s conduct undermined the rule of law, since it had failed to implement clear directions issued by the High Court five years earlier.
The ECÂ did not appear in court and was not represented by lawyers at the hearing.
Justice Namanya noted, however, that the commission had been properly served with hearing notices on December 17, 2025.
The court therefore allowed the matter to proceed ex parte, meaning it was heard in the absence of the EC.
Before addressing the substance of the case, the judge raised a preliminary legal issue on his own motion.
He considered whether the application was barred by res judicata under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Justice Namanya explained that res judicata prevents courts from re-litigating issues that have already been fully heard and finally decided by a competent court.
Quoting precedent, he said the doctrine exists “to prevent multiplicity of suits and bring finality to litigation”.
The judge examined the 2020 ruling by Justice Lydia Mugambe in Kalali Steven v Attorney General and Electoral Commission. In that landmark decision, the High Court held that prisoners and Ugandans in the diaspora have a constitutional right to vote.
She further ruled that the EC’s failure to allow prisoners to vote was illegal and violated Articles 1, 21 and 59 of the Constitution.
The court directed the commission “to take all necessary measures to ensure that prisoners and people in the diaspora register and exercise their right to vote”.
After reviewing both cases, Justice Namanya found that Nyeko’s application raised exactly the same issue that had already been determined in the Kalali Steven case.
“I have carefully considered the facts of the case before me now and Kalali Steven v Attorney General,” Justice Namanya said.
“My conclusion is that the issue raised by the current case was directly and substantially in issue in Kalali Steven v Attorney General.”
He added that Justice Mugambe’s ruling had “decisively dealt with the issue of prisoners’ right to vote”.
“The law does not allow this court to consider the same issue again,” he said.
Justice Namanya ruled that Nyeko’s case was res judicata and dismissed it.
“Therefore, I am satisfied that the case before me is res judicata and it is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs,” the judge concluded.
This means that while the court did not dispute the right of prisoners to vote, it declined to issue fresh orders against the EC.
