As the world prepares to mark the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture on 26 June, the Uganda Law Society (ULS) has expressed what it described as profound concern and condemnation of the Constitutional Court’s judgment nullifying a section of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, 2019. The court made a ruling in Faruku Muhamed & Others v Attorney General, Constitutional Petition No. 17 of 2024 and Constitutional Reference No. 2 of 2024 on Tuesday.
The Court declared that Section 11(2) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, 2019, is unconstitutional. In response, the Uganda Law Society Council on Tuesday said the ruling represents a significant setback in the protection of non-derogable rights. In the view of the ULS, the decision weakens constitutional, regional, and international safeguards against torture and other serious human rights violations.
Uganda Law Society President, Isaac Ssemakadde, and six members of his Council explained that the exclusionary rule under Section 11(2), which requires the automatic nullification of proceedings and acquittal where an accused person’s non-derogable rights have been violated, is not merely a procedural safeguard. “It serves as a critical protection against the use of evidence or proceedings tainted by torture. Such evidence is inherently unreliable and undermines the integrity of the justice system,” said the statement.
They said coerced confessions distort the truth-seeking function of courts and compromise the administration of justice. “This principle is reflected in legal frameworks worldwide, including Uganda’s Prohibition and Prevention of Torture Act, 2012, which prohibits the use of torture-derived evidence.” The ULS argues that the Faruku judgment risks legitimizing Uganda’s documented history of torture rather than strengthening efforts to eradicate it.
The Court justified its decision in part by citing the interests of crime victims and society’s interest in prosecuting offenders. However, the ULS contends that this reasoning is fundamentally flawed. “Torture can never be a legitimate investigative tool, and allowing proceedings tainted by torture to continue creates a dangerous precedent. Security agencies may perceive fewer consequences for rights violations, reducing deterrence and increasing the risk of coercive practices, wrongful convictions, and public mistrust in the justice system.”
According to the ULS, the ruling places greater emphasis on the completion of criminal trials than on upholding the absolute prohibition against torture-tainted processes. The Society maintains that the judgment is inconsistent with Uganda’s constitutional and international legal obligations. The ULS argues that the judgment contains significant internal contradictions.
The lawyers say while affirming the importance of non-derogable rights under Article 44 of the Constitution, which prohibits any limitation on freedom from torture, the Court simultaneously removed a key enforcement mechanism designed to protect those rights.
The Society also criticizes the Court for failing to engage with Uganda’s constitutional history, particularly the findings of the Said Commission (1971), Oder Commission (1986), and Odoki Commission (1993).
These commissions documented patterns of abuse, arbitrary detention, and torture that informed the robust human rights protections embedded in the 1995 Constitution.
The ULS further argues that the ruling disregards obligations arising under several legal instruments, including: The Constitution of Uganda, particularly Articles 24, 28, 44, 45, and 50; the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community, especially Articles 6(d) and 7(2); the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), including Articles 7 and 14; the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, particularly Article 5 and the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT), especially Article 15, which prohibits the use of statements obtained through torture as evidence.
The ULS has criticized the Constitutional Court bench, including newly appointed Deputy Chief Justice Moses Kazibwe Kawumi, arguing that the judgment fails to adequately protect the rule of law and constitutionalism.
According to the Society, by emphasizing the continuation of criminal proceedings and limiting remedies for torture violations primarily to civil compensation, the Court elevated procedural outcomes over substantive constitutional protections.
The ULS contends that this approach risks weakening judicial independence and emboldening executive overreach. The ULS is calling on judges, legal practitioners, civil society organizations, and the international community to reaffirm the absolute prohibition against torture and the use of torture-derived evidence.
The Radical New Bar Governing Council has resolved to pursue several measures, including establishing a special committee to coordinate an appeal to the Supreme Court by Hon. Paul Akamba and other parties. It has stated that it will seek orders preserving the effect of Section 11(2) pending the appeal.
ULS said that it intends to organize a nationwide lawyers’ strike on 26 June to raise public awareness and to expand public interest litigation, legal training on exclusionary rules, and documentation of rights violations.
On the regional actions, Ssemakadde and team say they will petition the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) for interpretation and redress under the East African Community Treaty. They have vowed to engage the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the UN Human Rights Committee, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, and other international mechanisms.
The Uganda Law Society has reaffirmed its commitment to the rule of law, judicial integrity, and the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. The Society stated that it remains ready to support affected parties and will continue advocating for a justice system that upholds the Constitution and protects all Ugandans from torture and other human rights violations.
