law 4 June 2026 The Observer (Uganda)
Constitutional Court Rules Against Automatic Acquittals for Rights Violations
Uganda's Constitutional Court has struck down key provisions of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, ruling that violations of an accused person's rights do not automatically lead to acquittal. The court emphasized that victims of crime also have a right to have their cases heard and determined. Source: https://observer.ug/news/torture-of-suspects-not-reason-enough-for-acquittal-constitutional-court-rules
The Constitutional Court has delivered a significant ruling, invalidating sections of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act that previously mandated the automatic acquittal of accused individuals upon proof of rights violations during investigations or prosecution. A five-judge panel, led by Justice Oscar Kihika, declared Sections 11(2)(a), (b), and (c) of the Act unconstitutional.
The landmark decision originated from a petition filed by lawyers Faruku Muhamed, John Musinguzi, and Ibrahim Bunyasin, later consolidated with a case involving former MP Paul Akamba, who alleged torture and unlawful detention. The court found that the impugned provisions undermined justice by preventing a full trial on substantive criminal charges, thereby denying victims their right to have their cases heard and resolved.
The ruling stated that while courts must address and remedy violations of suspects’ rights, such remedies should not automatically terminate criminal proceedings. The judges reasoned that the Constitution protects “a person,” encompassing victims whose interests are impacted by criminal cases. Victims play a crucial role as complainants and witnesses, and their rights, including potential compensation claims, are often central to criminal proceedings.
Instead of automatic acquittals, the court clarified that permissible remedies for rights violations include the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence, awarding compensation, or granting other appropriate measures, all while allowing criminal trials to proceed. Acquittals, the court stressed, should only stem from a thorough evaluation of evidence during a full trial.
This ruling distinguishes itself from previous cases where proceedings were halted due to systemic violations rendering a fair trial impossible. The court concluded that the struck-down provisions upset the constitutional balance between the rights of the accused and those of victims.
The Constitutional Court’s decision has, however, drawn criticism from some quarters within the Uganda Law Society, who express concern that it might weaken safeguards against state-sanctioned abuses. The court declared Section 11(2)(a), (b), and (c) unconstitutional to the extent that it allows acquittals without the determination of substantive criminal charges, affirming the constitutionally protected right of victims to a fair hearing throughout criminal proceedings. Each party involved was ordered to bear its own costs.
This article is based on information from The Observer (Uganda).