Abstract

In the heat of the 2016 presidential election petition challenging the re-election of Yoweri Kaguta Museveni in Uganda, two amicus curiae applications were filed in the Supreme Court – one from a group of civil society activists, while the other was instituted by nine Makerere University law professors. This article provides a review and analysis of the Supreme Court decisions on the two applications against the backdrop of a largely conservative approach to the admission of amicus curiae briefs in Ugandan courts. It argues that the decision in the Makerere professors’ case set a progressive precedent for the admission of such applications, and clarified several issues, including the questions of bias, the expertise of the intended ‘friends’, and the place of the public in such an application.