After Uganda’s Vote, Praise From the African Union Meets a Continental Backlash
By Adonis Byemelwa
Bukoba / Kampala — By the time Uganda’s Electoral Commission declared President Yoweri Museveni the winner of the January 15, 2026, general election, the result itself had already settled into something familiar.
Museveni, in power for nearly four decades, was credited with 71.61 per cent of the vote, or 7,946,772 ballots. His primary challenger, Robert Kyagulanyi, the opposition leader better known as Bobi Wine, was assigned 24.72 per cent.
What followed, however, was less routine. Within days, the African Union issued a statement praising the election as consistent with Ugandans’ democratic rights, triggering a backlash that rippled across Uganda, Tanzania and much of the continent, exposing long-simmering frustrations over elections, observation missions and the meaning of legitimacy in African politics.
In a statement released on January 18, the AU Commission chairperson, Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, commended the joint AU–COMESA–IGAD Election Observation Mission for what he described as the “successful conduct of a peaceful electoral process.”
He congratulated Ugandans for maintaining calm and formally congratulated Museveni on his re-election. Youssouf also praised the head of the observer mission, former Nigerian president Goodluck Jonathan, saying he had led the process “with professionalism and commitment.”
Jonathan, speaking separately after the vote, said the election had been “generally orderly” and reflected the will of voters who turned out peacefully. “No election is perfect,” he said, according to a statement from the mission, “but what we observed did not fundamentally undermine the outcome.”
For Kyagulanyi and his supporters, those words landed like a dismissal of lived reality. In a statement rejecting the results, Kyagulanyi said the election had been “neither free nor fair” and accused the state of using security forces, arrests and administrative restrictions to cripple the opposition.
“This regime used violence, intimidation and fraud to retain power,” he said, adding that the announced outcome “does not reflect the will of the Ugandan people.”
The disagreement quickly spilt beyond Uganda’s borders. President Samia Suluhu Hassan of Tanzania was among the first regional leaders to congratulate Museveni, posting a message that emphasised continuity and regional stability.
In Tanzania, the reaction was divided. Government supporters framed the gesture as a diplomatic necessity. Critics, including opposition activists and academics, questioned why regional leaders moved so quickly to endorse results that remained bitterly contested inside Uganda.
On Tanzanian social media, the AU statement became a lightning rod. Users on X and Facebook shared videos and testimony from Ugandan opposition figures, arguing that calm polling-day scenes could not erase weeks of campaign disruption, arrests, and restrictions on rallies. Some compared the AU’s language to statements issued after other disputed elections across the continent, calling it formulaic and detached.
Among the most pointed critiques came from Dr Azaveri Lwaitama, a former University of Dar es Salaam lecturer and political analyst, who wrote that the statement was “deeply painful to Pan-Africanists.”
“It confirms the fear that the African Union has reduced itself to a rubber stamp for the actions of Africa’s long-serving rulers,” he said, adding that observer missions increasingly appeared “more concerned with stability than with democratic substance.”
Martin Tanzu, a Tanzanian political commentator, echoed that view in an interview, arguing that election observation in Africa had become overly narrow.
“Observers focus on whether people queued and voted peacefully,” he said. “They ignore the months before, the arrests, the intimidation, the closing of political space. Democracy does not begin on polling day.”
Inside Uganda, tensions sharpened rather than eased. Kyagulanyi reported that several of his supporters were detained after the vote and said security forces maintained a heavy presence around opposition strongholds. He said he remained defiant but cautious, telling supporters that “the struggle for a democratic Uganda continues.”
Then came a statement that further escalated matters. Muhoozi Kainerugaba, Uganda’s Chief of Defence Forces and the president’s son, posted on social media, accusing Kyagulanyi of “hiding” and demanding that he present himself to authorities within 48 hours.
“Bobi Wine must stop playing games and show himself,” Kainerugaba wrote. The remark was widely interpreted by opposition figures and rights advocates as a threat, reinforcing fears about the military’s role in post-election politics.
The government did not formally comment on Kainerugaba’s statement, but it circulated rapidly online, intensifying concern among Kyagulanyi’s supporters and drawing condemnation from regional activists. Ugandan rights groups said the message blurred the line between civilian politics and military power, a boundary that has long been contested under Museveni’s rule.
Beyond East Africa, international reactions were cautious. Western governments issued restrained statements calling for dialogue and respect for the rule of law. The U.S. President Donald Trump, speaking at a campaign rally in the United States, offered remarks that some interpreted as praise for Museveni’s longevity and firmness, comments that critics said reflected an enduring tolerance for strongman leadership.
Museveni himself appeared unfazed by the criticism. Supporters circulated past speeches in which he dismissed foreign pressure and boasted of Uganda’s military strength, including remarks suggesting that even a powerful army such as the United States’ would struggle if it attempted a ground invasion of Uganda. While such statements were not new, their resurfacing underscored how defiance of external opinion remains central to Museveni’s political persona.
Human rights organisations pushed back more directly. The Kenya Human Rights Commission said in a statement that the AU’s endorsement risked “normalising deeply flawed electoral processes” and urged African observer missions to broaden their assessments beyond election day logistics. “Peace without political freedom is not democracy,” the group said.
The African Union has defended its approach, emphasising respect for national sovereignty and the importance of avoiding violence. However, critics argue that this emphasis has come at a cost. Each endorsement of a contested election, they say, widens the gap between official declarations and public trust, especially among younger voters who experience politics through a mix of repression and digital connectivity.
In Kampala, daily life resumed under a familiar political order, but the debate did not fade. For many Ugandans, the January 15 vote was not an isolated event, but part of a longer story, one in which elections are held regularly, yet power rarely changes hands.
Across the region, from Dar es Salaam to Nairobi and beyond, the argument was never only about Yoweri Museveni. It was about who gets to define democracy in Africa, and on whose terms. Is it measured by orderly queues and sealed ballot boxes, or by the harder, messier freedoms that come before election day: the right to organise, to speak without fear, to challenge power and survive the challenge?
For many Ugandans, the weeks after January 15 offered their own answer. Life returned to a familiar rhythm, but under watchful eyes. Supporters spoke in lowered voices, activists checked their phones before posting, and politics slipped back into the careful language learned over the years. It is in these quiet adjustments, more than in official tallies, that elections leave their mark.
The vote settled who governs Uganda for now. It did not settle the deeper question that travelled across borders and timelines: whether Africa’s institutions are prepared to rebuild public trust by confronting uncomfortable truths.
For the African Union, that trust will not be restored through swift congratulations alone. It will require observation missions that listen as much as they count, that weigh fear alongside peace, and that show citizens, especially the young, that democracy is not just something to be declared, but something to be defended.
