Uganda’s electoral commission chair, Simon Byabakama, says he has received threats warning him against declaring certain presidential candidates as winners of Thursday’s election. Speaking at the headquarters of the Uganda Electoral Commission in Kampala, he said he would not be intimidated and that only the law and the will of voters would guide the announcement of results.
His comments followed the circulation of a video published by the Daily Monitor, in which presidential aide Yiga Kisakyamukama is heard saying the commission would never declare opposition candidate Robert Kyagulanyi, popularly known as Bobi Wine, as president, even if he were to win. Byabakama responded publicly, insisting that he was “not in the business of donating votes” and that fear had no place in his work.
A firm public stance from the electoral umpire
Byabakama’s remarks were notable not because they remove doubts about the credibility of Uganda’s vote, but because of their directness. Faced with alleged pressure from senior state figures, he chose to speak openly and to rest his authority on the law. He said the candidate who secures more than 50 percent plus one of the valid votes cast would be declared president, regardless of opinions or threats.
“Some people say if you don’t declare so-and-so as president, you will see. I tell them that I am not in the business of donating votes,” Byabakama said, adding that fear “does not exist” in his vocabulary.
He also promised that presidential results would be announced within 48 hours of the close of polling, as required by Ugandan law. For a country voting under heavy security deployment and intense political tension, the pledge was designed to project confidence and procedural clarity.
Cameroon and the absence of similar reassurance
The Ugandan episode inevitably invites comparison with Cameroon, where elections are managed by Elections Cameroon. In Cameroon, public reassurance of this nature from the head of the electoral commission has been rare. Allegations of political pressure are often discussed by opposition parties and civil society, but seldom confronted openly by the institution responsible for declaring results.
This raises a critical question. Could Cameroon’s electoral commission leadership publicly state, in clear terms, that it would resist pressure from powerful interests and declare results strictly based on the law. And if such a statement were made, would it be trusted by voters?
Voter numbers and result timelines
The contrast becomes sharper when the scale of the two elections is considered. Uganda has about 21.6 million registered voters, nearly three times Cameroon’s roughly 8 million. Despite this, Uganda’s electoral commission is promising results within two days.
In Cameroon, presidential results have taken up to two weeks to be announced, even with a significantly smaller electorate. The delay has repeatedly fuelled suspicion, rumours, and doubts about post-vote manipulation. The difference in timelines raises uncomfortable questions about efficiency, transparency, and institutional capacity.
Power, incumbency, and credibility
Uganda’s election pits long-serving president Yoweri Museveni, now 81, against Bobi Wine, a 43-year-old opposition challenger. Campaigning has been marked by arrests, disrupted rallies, an internet shutdown, and a heavy military presence. Cameroon’s electoral environment shares many of these features, including entrenched incumbency and security-heavy voting periods.
Yet there is a key distinction. In Uganda, the electoral commission chair has publicly asserted his independence and tied his legitimacy to the law and the voters. In Cameroon, the silence or caution of the electoral umpire has often left citizens guessing rather than reassured.
A mirror Cameroon cannot ignore
Byabakama’s words do not guarantee a free or fair election in Uganda. They do, however, set a benchmark for public accountability by an electoral authority under pressure. For Cameroon, the comparison is difficult but necessary.
With fewer voters and longer result delays, the absence of clear, forceful reassurance from its electoral commission continues to undermine public trust. Until that gap is addressed, episodes like Uganda’s will keep exposing the weaknesses in Cameroon’s own electoral credibility.
