As Uganda approaches the 2026 General Election, concerns are growing about a troubling trend: the potential use of cloud system integration in electoral fraud, which could accelerate democratic backsliding.

Allegations suggest the NRM regime is preparing agents, reportedly trained in Nairobi, Kenya, under the Uganda Electoral Capacity Building Project to exploit technology for electoral gain.

The training of National Resistance Movement agents is said to have been facilitated by Kenya’s Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC). Kenya’s elections is yet to recover from the 2013, 2017 and 2022 election debacles after the country’s Supreme Court adjudged to have bent the rules in favour of incumbents.

 This article explores what cloud system integration entails, how it might fuel democratic erosion, and why safeguards are critical.

What is democratic backsliding?

Democratic backsliding refers to the gradual undermining of democratic institutions, norms, and practices, often through legal or quasi-legal means. It involves the erosion of checks and balances, suppression of opposition, and manipulation of electoral processes to consolidate power.

In Uganda, signs of democratic backsliding include restrictions on freedoms, weakened accountability and increasingly opaque governance. Recent examples include the heavy militarisation of opposition leader Kyagulanyi Ssentamu’s campaign trail, with reports of his supporters being tortured and maimed, raising alarms about shrinking political space.

What is cloud system integration?

Cloud system integration connects disparate IT systems over the internet to streamline data exchange and processes. In elections, this could mean real-time vote tracking or centralised result management. While promising efficiency, it also opens doors to risks like unauthorised access, data manipulation or cyber-attacks if safeguards are weak.

Uganda’s electoral tech plans: a double-edged sword?

The Electoral Commission is introducing biometric voter verification kits (BVVKs) for 2026, using fingerprints and facial recognition. Proponents see this as a step toward transparency but the technology isn’t fool-proof. Biometrics can be vulnerable to spoofing, data errors or exclusion of legitimate voters with worn-out fingerprints – a weakness that could be attractive to those seeking to manipulate outcomes.

Critics worry: what if the system extends to cloud-based vote processing? The Office of the National Chairman (ONC)’s “Vote Protection System,” designed to monitor polling stations, has amplified fears of potential misuse. Are we safeguarding votes – or controlling them?

Allegations of preparing for rigging

Reports suggest agents were trained in Nairobi to handle advanced systems, sparking fears of a centralised rigging mechanism. Without clear oversight, cloud integration could enable altering results in real-time, disenfranchising voters in opposition strongholds under the guise of “technical glitches.” This risks deepening democratic backsliding by normalizing electoral manipulation.

Key risks and implications

Let me summarise hereunder the key risks and implications:

• Undermining Trust: Perceived fraud could spark unrest, weakening democratic legitimacy of the NRM regime
• Suppression of Opposition: “Technical issues” could block votes in critical areas, particularly those perceived to be strongly pro-Opposition
• Erosion of Accountability: Centralised control risks adjustments without audit trails
• Cyber Threats: Cloud systems are vulnerable to hacking, compromising results.

Safeguarding Uganda’s democracy

To counter these risks:

• Demand Transparency: Involve independent observers, opposition parties, and civil society in audits
• Fortify Security: Use end-to-end encryption, offline backups, and multi-factor authentication
• Educate Voters: Ensure citizens know their rights and how systems work
• Strengthen Laws: Define strict rules for tech use in elections, with penalties for breaches.

Conclusion

Technology in elections can be a leap forward – but only if it serves democracy, not undermines it. Uganda’s 2026 elections are a test of resilience against democratic backsliding.

The Electoral Commission must prioritise openness, security, electoral justice and accountability to ensure the process reinforces, rather than erodes, democratic values. It is absolutely important that Uganda’s elections are demilitarised to ensure that the voters do not elect under military control and fear or even avoid going to the polls in anticipation of state violence or, for that matter, the soldiers and militarised police upon the voters, particularly in areas considering pro-opposition.

Ultimately the people to be politically-developed must trust the electoral process and participate fully in the election to choose their leaders freely. Elections should not be organised for power retention, conquest and occupation. Doing so renders them useless in the democratic development of Uganda and the citizens and blurs the future in the interest of the rulers. If the citizens do not trust the electoral process the alternative for them is rising up to protect democracy by whatever way and means they collectively choose.

For God and my country.

• A Tell report / By Oweyegha-Afunaduula / Environmental Historian and Conservationist Centre for Critical Thinking and Alternative Analysis (CCTAA), Seeta, Mukono, Uganda.

About the Centre for Critical Thinking and Alternative Analysis (CCTAA)

The CCTAA was innovated by Hyuha Mukwanason, Oweyegha-Afunaduula and Mahir Balunywa in 2019 to the rising decline in the capacity of graduates in Uganda and beyond to engage in critical thinking and reason coherently besides excellence in academics and academic production. The three scholars were convinced that after academic achievement the world outside the ivory tower needed graduates that can think critically and reason coherently towards making society and the environment better for human gratification. They reasoned between themselves and reached the conclusion that disciplinary education did not only narrow the thinking and reasoning of those exposed to it but restricted the opportunity to excel in critical thinking and reasoning, which are the ultimate aim of education. They were dismayed by the truism that the products of disciplinary education find it difficult to tick outside the boundaries of their disciplines; that when they provide solutions to problems that do not recognise the artificial boundaries between knowledges, their solutions become the new problems. They decided that the answer was a new and different medium of learning and innovating, which they characterised as “The Centre for Critical Thinking and Alternative Analysis” (CCTAA).