By Afrireport 
President Yoweri Museveni has lined up six witnesses to defend his victory in the January 15 presidential election, which is now the subject of a petition before Uganda’s Supreme Court.
The move signals the start of a closely watched legal battle that could shape the country’s political landscape and test the strength of its electoral and judicial institutions.
The petition challenging Museveni’s re-election was filed by his main challenger, who argues that the poll was marred by widespread irregularities, voter intimidation and violations of the Constitution and electoral laws.
Among the issues raised are alleged manipulation of results, unequal access to state resources during the campaign period and the conduct of security agencies before and after polling day.
In response, Museveni’s legal team has submitted a list of six witnesses expected to testify in his defence.
Also Read
- Six Witnesses, One Verdict: Museveni Prepares for Legal Fight Over Poll Win
- "State House Is Not a Party Office,” Salasya Fires Warning
- Ruto Announces Tax Cut for Earnners Below Ksh50,000
- Government Plans to Tap NSSF Pension Reserves for High Return Projects
- Ruto to Meet Over 12,000 Aspirants in Early Signal of 2027 Battle
According to court filings, the witnesses will provide evidence aimed at demonstrating that the election was conducted in substantial compliance with the law and that any irregularities cited by the petitioner did not affect the final outcome.
The defence is also expected to argue that the president won by a decisive margin that cannot be overturned by procedural complaints.
Legal experts say the selection of witnesses is a critical step in election petitions, as their testimony often shapes how judges assess credibility, compliance and the overall integrity of the electoral process.
Museveni’s team is likely to rely on a mix of election officials, party agents and technical experts to counter the claims raised in the petition.
The Supreme Court has already issued timelines for the filing of affidavits and responses, underscoring the urgency with which presidential election disputes are handled under Ugandan law.
Such petitions are constitutionally required to be concluded within a strict timeframe, reflecting the need for political certainty and continuity of governance.
For supporters of the president, the decision to mount a robust defence is seen as confidence in the electoral process and the strength of his mandate.
Critics, however, view the case as another test of judicial independence and an opportunity for the court to address longstanding concerns about elections in the country.
As the hearing dates approach, public attention is expected to intensify, with many Ugandans keenly following the proceedings.
Beyond the immediate outcome, the Supreme Court’s handling of the petition is likely to have lasting implications for future elections, public trust in institutions, and the broader democratic process in Uganda.
