Human rights activists and legal practitioners in the Masaka region have expressed strong concerns over a recent Constitutional Court ruling that struck down key provisions of the Human Rights Enforcement Act, 2019, describing the decision as a setback for the protection of suspects’ rights in Uganda.
Led by Alexander Lule, the Uganda Law Society (ULS) representative for the Masaka region, the activists argue that the ruling exposes accused persons to heightened risks of torture and abuse by security operatives during investigations aimed at extracting evidence.
Lule said the nullification of Section 11(2)(a), (b), and (c) weakens legal safeguards that were meant to protect suspects against violations of non-derogable rights, particularly the right to freedom from torture.
“Even when the section was in place, security agencies still engaged in physical and psychological torture. Now that it has been declared unconstitutional, the situation could become even worse,” Lule said, adding that the group is considering appealing the decision in the Supreme Court.
The struck-out provisions previously required courts to declare a trial a nullity and acquit an accused person where it was established that their non-derogable rights had been violated during investigations.
According to activists, this mechanism served as a critical deterrent against torture and unlawful interrogation practices by security agencies.
Another human rights advocate, Kayinga Muddu Yisto, also criticised the ruling, describing it as irregular and contrary to constitutional protections.
He argued that courts should not proceed with criminal trials where evidence is obtained through torture, adding that such practices undermine the justice system and encourage continued abuse.
“At times, courts have discontinued criminal trials after finding that suspects were tortured. This practice should not go unpunished because it is still common. We cannot allow this to continue unchecked,” Kayinga said.
Human rights lawyer Sam Ssekyewa also expressed dissatisfaction with the ruling, saying it weakens constitutional protections and appears to legitimise torture as an investigative tool.
He stressed that no suspect should be subjected to torture in the name of obtaining evidence, adding that Uganda’s Constitution clearly prohibits such treatment.
However, the Attorney General defended the ruling, arguing that automatically acquitting accused persons without a full trial undermines the principle of fair hearing and denies victims of crime justice.
Those supporting the judgment maintained that Section 11(2) introduced what they termed “automatic acquittal without prosecution,” creating imbalance in the justice process and potentially denying victims the opportunity to be heard.
In its 2 June 2026 ruling, a panel of five Constitutional Court justices held that Section 11(2)(a), (b), and (c) of the Act was unconstitutional to the extent that it allowed courts to acquit an accused person solely on the basis of violations of non-derogable rights without a fair hearing on the substantive criminal charges.
The court further noted that the right to a fair hearing under Article 28 of the Constitution must be balanced with victims’ rights under Article 20 and Article 45, which should be safeguarded throughout criminal proceedings.
“Courts and tribunals should ensure that victims are afforded the procedural safeguards necessary to vindicate their rights. Each party shall bear its own costs, as this is a constitutional matter,” the ruling stated.
English 