The Constitutional Court has struck down provisions of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act that allowed courts to automatically acquit accused persons whenever their rights were violated, ruling that the law was unconstitutional because it denied victims the right to have criminal cases fully heard and determined.
In a landmark judgment delivered in Constitutional Petition No. 17 of 2024, a panel of five justices held that Section 11(2)(a), (b), and (c) of the Act improperly allowed criminal proceedings to end before substantive evidence could be examined in court.
The petition was filed by lawyers Faruku Muhamed, John Musinguzi, and Ibrahim Bunyasin against the Attorney General and was later consolidated with Constitutional Reference No. 2 of 2024 linked to corruption proceedings involving former Namutumba County MP Paul Akamba.
The Constitutional Court panel was led by Justice Oscar Kihika and included Lady Justice Margret Tibulya, Justice Moses Kazibwe Kawumi, Dr. Asa Mugenyi, and Justice Musa Ssekaana.
In their ruling, the judges said the contested law upset the balance between the rights of accused persons and those of victims by allowing acquittals without a full hearing of criminal charges.
The court observed that victims of crime are entitled to a fair hearing under the Constitution and should not be denied the opportunity to have their complaints fully considered by the courts.
“The right to a fair hearing is not reserved only for accused persons,” the judges held, noting that Article 28(1) of the Constitution protects “a person,” including victims, complainants, and others directly affected by criminal proceedings.
The justices further emphasized that victims now play a broader role in the justice system, including as witnesses and beneficiaries of compensation or restitution orders.
The case arose from concerns that the law created a loophole allowing accused persons to avoid prosecution whenever courts established that their non-derogable rights, such as protection from torture or the right to a fair hearing, had been violated during investigations or prosecution.
Paul Akamba’s case formed part of the consolidated proceedings after he challenged his prosecution on grounds that he had allegedly been abducted from court premises after securing bail, detained incommunicado for seven days, tortured, and later re-arrested on corruption-related charges.
During the hearings, the Attorney General argued that the provisions created a legal anomaly by favouring accused persons while overlooking the interests of victims and complainants.
Government lawyers maintained that although courts must address violations of suspects’ rights, remedies should not automatically terminate criminal cases.
However, a group of 22 intervenors led by lawyer Abubaker Sekanjako defended the law, arguing that it was necessary to deter torture, unlawful detention, and abuse by state actors.
The intervenors relied on previous decisions, including the 2007 case involving opposition politician Dr. Kizza Besigye, where courts halted prosecutions due to serious and systemic violations of rights.
Professor Christopher Mbazira, appearing as a friend of the court, urged the judges to consider Uganda’s history of human rights abuses and the importance of strong legal safeguards where non-derogable rights are violated.
But the Constitutional Court distinguished the current matter from the Besigye case, saying the earlier decision involved exceptional circumstances that made a fair trial impossible.
The judges ruled that allegations of torture and other violations must still be addressed by courts, but such abuses do not automatically erase criminal liability.
Instead, courts may provide alternative remedies, including compensation, exclusion of illegally obtained evidence, or other reliefs while allowing trials to proceed.
The court stressed that acquittals can only arise after a full trial in which evidence has been properly evaluated.
In its final orders, the Constitutional Court declared Section 11(2)(a), (b), and (c) unconstitutional to the extent that it permits acquittals without hearing and determining substantive criminal charges.
The judges also affirmed that victims’ rights to a fair hearing are constitutionally protected and must be safeguarded throughout criminal proceedings.
Each party was ordered to bear its own legal costs.
The ruling has since triggered debate within legal circles, with some members of the Uganda Law Society warning that the decision could weaken protections against torture and embolden abuse by security agencies and other state actors.
English 