Uganda’s Constitutional Court has delivered a landmark ruling that could significantly reshape the country’s criminal justice system and the enforcement of human rights protections. In a unanimous decision delivered on June 2, 2026, a panel of five justices declared unconstitutional key provisions of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act that required courts to automatically acquit accused persons whenever their non-derogable rights had been violated.
The judgment, delivered by Justices Oscar Kihika, Margaret Tibulya, Moses Kazibwe Kawumi, Asa Mugenyi, and Musa Ssekaana, specifically struck down Section 11(2)(a), (b), and (c) of the Act. The provision had compelled judges and magistrates to nullify criminal proceedings and acquit accused persons where it was established that rights such as freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment had been violated during investigations or prosecution.
The case arose from Constitutional Petition No. 17 of 2024 filed by advocates Faruku Muhamed, Musinguzi John, and Bunyasin Ibrahim, as well as Constitutional Reference No. 2 of 2024 involving Busiki County Member of Parliament Paul Akamba. Akamba had alleged that he was abducted, detained incommunicado, and tortured by security operatives after being granted bail in corruption-related proceedings.
In reaching its decision, the Constitutional Court held that the automatic acquittal mechanism unfairly denied victims of crime the opportunity to have their cases heard. The judges reasoned that such a provision effectively terminated criminal proceedings without addressing the substantive charges before the court, thereby limiting access to justice for victims.
A central aspect of the ruling was the court’s interpretation of the constitutional right to a fair hearing. The judges stated that Article 28(1) of the Constitution applies to “a person” and is therefore not limited to accused individuals alone. According to the court, victims of crime are also rights holders who are entitled to participate in criminal proceedings and have their interests considered and protected.
The court further ruled that although victims’ rights are not expressly listed among the fundamental rights and freedoms in Chapter Four of the Constitution, they are protected under Article 45. As a result, the judges concluded that criminal justice processes must balance the rights of accused persons with those of victims seeking justice.
The ruling has been widely viewed as a significant development in Uganda’s legal landscape, particularly in relation to the relationship between human rights enforcement and criminal prosecutions. Supporters of the decision argue that it strengthens the rights of victims and ensures that criminal cases are determined on their merits rather than being automatically dismissed because of procedural violations.
However, the judgment has also attracted strong criticism from human rights advocates and legal practitioners. Among the most vocal critics is the Uganda Law Society (ULS), which has announced its intention to challenge the decision before the Supreme Court.
In a statement issued shortly after the ruling, ULS President Isaac Ssemakadde described the judgment as a major setback for constitutionalism, human rights protection, and the rule of law. The Society argued that the struck-down provisions served as a crucial safeguard against torture and other serious violations of non-derogable rights.
According to the ULS, evidence or proceedings tainted by torture cannot be relied upon to achieve justice because coerced confessions and unlawful treatment compromise the integrity of the judicial process. The lawyers’ body warned that removing the automatic consequences for such violations could weaken deterrence against torture and embolden state actors who engage in unlawful conduct.
The Society also faulted the Constitutional Court for failing to adequately consider Uganda’s constitutional history. It pointed to findings by the Said Commission, Oder Commission, and Odoki Commission, which documented widespread human rights abuses and influenced the strong protections incorporated into the 1995 Constitution.
With the Uganda Law Society now preparing an appeal to the Supreme Court, the legal battle is far from over. The forthcoming appeal is expected to reignite debate over how Uganda should balance the rights of accused persons, the interests of crime victims, and the need to hold state actors accountable for violations of fundamental human rights. The Supreme Court’s eventual decision could have lasting consequences for the country’s justice system and human rights framework.
