ULS Challenges Court Ruling on Torture Victims' Acquittal
On June 2, 2026, the Uganda Law Society (ULS) announced its intention to appeal to the Supreme Court following a Constitutional Court ruling that struck down provisions of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act. These provisions mandated the automatic acquittal of accused persons whenever their non-derogable rights, including freedom from torture, were violated.
The Constitutional Court, in a unanimous decision, declared Section 11(2)(a), (b), and (c) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act unconstitutional. The court held that the automatic acquittal mechanism denied victims of crime their right to be heard and undermined access to justice. The judges emphasized that victims' right to a fair hearing is preserved under Article 45 of the Constitution and must be protected in all criminal proceedings.
ULS's Position
ULS President Isaac Ssemakadde condemned the judgment, describing it as a major setback for constitutionalism, human rights protection, and the rule of law. The society argues that the exclusionary rule in Section 11(2) is a foundational safeguard, as evidence or proceedings tainted by torture are inherently unreliable. ULS contends that by striking down the automatic nullification of proceedings arising from violations of non-derogable rights, the court has reduced deterrence against torture and unlawful conduct by security agencies.
Legal and Human Rights Implications
The ruling has sparked debate within the legal community and among human rights advocates. While the court maintains that the protection of non-derogable rights remains absolute, it suggests that violations should be addressed through constitutional and statutory remedies rather than by automatically terminating criminal proceedings. This perspective raises concerns about the effectiveness of existing mechanisms in deterring rights violations and ensuring accountability.
Next Steps
The ULS has resolved to coordinate an appeal to the Supreme Court through a special committee and seek orders preserving the operation of Section 11(2) pending the determination of the appeal. Additionally, the society plans to petition regional and international human rights bodies, including the East African Court of Justice and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, to address the broader implications of the ruling.
As the legal battle unfolds, it will be closely watched for its impact on the balance between protecting victims of crime, safeguarding fair trial rights, and enforcing Uganda’s absolute prohibition against torture.
