This article analyses the constitutional and domestic legal framework under
which the president of Uganda has been elected since 1995. The focus is on
the three Supreme Court decisions in the adjudication of presidential electoral
disputes in 2001, 2006 and in 2016. It argues that presidential electoral
laws are deficient in their capacity to facilitate fair political contestation.
This is because they were not adequately constructed to address electoral
malpractices pertaining to Uganda, and they have been interpreted to favour
the incumbent.