Constitutional Court Ruling on Torture Claims Sparks Uproar

The Constitutional Court’s recent decision to invalidate Section 11(2) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act has ignited a firestorm of controversy. This provision previously allowed for the nullification of criminal proceedings and the acquittal of individuals whose non-derogable rights, including freedom from torture, were violated by state security actors.

A panel of five justices unanimously ruled that the provision was inconsistent with the Constitution, asserting that acquittals should stem from a structured evidentiary inquiry rather than automatically following allegations of rights violations. This reasoning, however, has been met with strong opposition from those dedicated to protecting fundamental liberties.

Human rights defenders and legal experts argue that the ruling significantly weakens a crucial deterrent against torture during criminal investigations. Dr. Livingstone Ssewayana of the Foundation for Human Rights Initiative (FHRI) stated that the decision “reverses the gains we had made in fighting torture” and could be perceived as “granting a licence to perpetrators.”

The Uganda Law Society (ULS) echoed these sentiments, calling the judgment a “regrettable retreat from the protection of non-derogable rights.” In a statement, the ULS asserted that the court’s decision prioritizes the completion of criminal trials over the absolute prohibition of torture and other gross violations.

Constitutional lawyer Erias Lukwago criticized the ruling for “watering down” constitutional jurisprudence, suggesting it effectively grants the state impunity to inflict torture. Counsel Jude Byamukama expressed hope for an appeal to the Supreme Court, noting that similar legal principles protecting citizens’ rights exist in jurisdictions like the USA, UK, and Kenya.

The case originated from allegations by Paul Akamba, a co-accused in corruption cases, who claimed he was abducted, detained, and tortured after being granted bail. His application to dismiss proceedings under the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act was challenged by the Attorney General, leading to the Constitutional Court’s review.

This landmark ruling, expected to be appealed, carries significant implications for the enforcement of non-derogable rights and the future of criminal prosecutions in Uganda. The Constitutional Court agreed with the Attorney General’s position that remedies for rights violations should be proportionate and not automatically terminate proceedings.

Source: Daily Monitor (Uganda)