George Musisi says election disputes raise issues beyond individual candidates, arguing that courts should be able to examine allegations of electoral malpractice even when the person who filed a petition dies.
Human rights lawyer George Musisi has called for amendments to Uganda’s election laws to allow courts to continue hearing election petitions after a petitioner dies, arguing that electoral disputes extend beyond individual candidates to the rights of voters.
Musisi’s proposal follows the death of former Busiro South parliamentary candidate Charles Matovu, whose petition challenging the election of National Resistance Movement (NRM) candidate Kenan Opio is affected by a legal provision requiring such proceedings to abate when the sole petitioner dies.
Section 86 of the Parliamentary Elections Act provides that an election petition abates upon the death of the sole petitioner or all petitioners.
The provision means that, ordinarily, the case cannot continue through the deceased petitioner’s family or legal representative.
Matovu, who contested the January 2026 parliamentary election on the National Unity Platform (NUP) ticket, died on October 22, before the High Court could determine his challenge to Opio’s victory.
He had alleged electoral irregularities, including concerns over electoral documents and declaration of results forms. The substantive allegations had not been determined by a final judgment when he died.
Musisi argues that election petitions should be treated as matters of public interest because candidates who challenge results may also be seeking accountability on behalf of voters who participated in the electoral process.
“Election matters, by their nature, are public interest matters. They are not necessarily personal,” Musisi says.
He argues that allegations of electoral interference, including claims involving security agencies and ballot stuffing, go beyond the interests of individual candidates and may affect public confidence in the electoral process.
Musisi questions why some civil cases can continue after a litigant’s death while election petitions are subject to specific rules that can terminate proceedings when a sole petitioner dies.
“If in other civil matters a cause of action could subsist, how about an election matter?” he asks.
He says the law should be reviewed to establish whether courts can continue examining the substance of an election petition after the death of the person who filed it, rather than allowing proceedings to end without a determination of the allegations.
The lawyer also draws a comparison with electoral procedures for nominated candidates. He says the rules governing the death of a nominated candidate raise questions about how the law should address the death of a candidate who has already taken an election dispute to court.
Musisi called on legal practitioners and legislators to consider reforms that would allow election petitions to serve the wider public interest while maintaining clear procedures for resolving disputes within the timelines prescribed by law.
“I think we may need an amendment to see that even when the petitioner dies, court should still go ahead to make a decision on the matters that were before court,” he says.
He argues that such a change would allow allegations of electoral malpractice to receive judicial scrutiny instead of remaining unresolved because of circumstances beyond voters’ control.
“The cause of action should go beyond the death of the petitioner,” Musisi says.