By In the wake of accusations leveled by National Unity Platform (NUP) leader Robert Kyagulanyi, popularly known as Bobi Wine, Uganda’s Judiciary finds itself under increasing public scrutiny. The political tension escalated following the burial of Kawempe North MP Muhammad Ssegirinya, where Kyagulanyi condemned the role of judicial officers in what he described as oppressive state actions against opposition figures. His criticism centered around the denial of bail to Ssegirinya and Makindye West MP Allan Ssewanyana, both accused of murder and terrorism charges, with claims that the prolonged detention contributed to Ssegirinya’s deteriorating health and eventual death.
Kyagulanyi’s remarks highlighted growing concerns over the impartiality of Uganda’s judicial system. “Judges who repeatedly denied Ssegirinya and Ssewanyana bail are as oppressive as Museveni who detained them,” Kyagulanyi stated during his address. He further criticized judicial officers for failing to uphold the Constitution, drawing comparisons to Chief Justice Benedicto Kiwanuka, who was killed in 1972 for standing firm against authoritarian rule.
This criticism comes amid a broader debate about judicial independence in Uganda, fueled by President Museveni’s recent directives against granting police bonds. Legal experts and opposition figures argue that such directives undermine judicial autonomy and disregard constitutional protections for suspects. However, defenders of the government maintain that stringent measures are necessary to combat rising crime and maintain law and order.
Despite the criticisms, the Judiciary has played a pivotal role in key political moments, including securing Kyagulanyi’s release during his 2021 presidential campaign. Arrested in Luuka District during a campaign rally, Kyagulanyi was later freed through judicial orders, allowing him to continue his campaign efforts. Legal interventions were also critical when he faced house arrest at his Kampala residence following the election.
Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo has publicly defended the Judiciary’s impartiality, emphasizing that judicial officers are bound by law and evidence rather than public opinion or political influence. “When Bobi Wine was arrested and prosecuted, it was these same courts that granted him bail. He was able to campaign to the end because of those rulings,” the Chief Justice remarked during a recent retreat with judicial officers.
The Judiciary’s approach to granting bail and handling politically charged cases has sparked polarized reactions. Legal practitioners note that judicial discretion is critical in assessing whether a suspect poses a flight risk or a threat to public safety. However, balancing these legal considerations with public expectations remains challenging.
In cases involving high-profile political figures, such as Ssegirinya and Ssewanyana, the courts face immense pressure from both the state and opposition supporters. While the Constitution provides for bail as a fundamental right, state prosecutors often present evidence suggesting that certain suspects may interfere with witnesses or pose security risks, complicating judicial decisions.
The death of MP Ssegirinya has reignited public discourse on the state’s handling of political dissent. His prolonged detention without bail is seen by many as emblematic of broader systemic issues. Opposition leaders accuse the government of weaponizing the Judiciary to silence dissent, while government officials insist that legal processes are followed diligently.
The Judiciary has also faced criticism in past cases where suspects were accused of high-profile crimes. In March 2021, four individuals robbed a foreign businessman of significant amounts of cash in broad daylight as police officers reportedly stood by. Incidents like these, coupled with unresolved cases involving opposition figures, have contributed to public skepticism about the effectiveness and fairness of judicial processes.
Amid these challenges, Uganda’s Judiciary asserts its commitment to upholding the rule of law. “The courts do not weigh in favor of any party but balance the need for justice for both the accused and the public,” judicial officers maintain. The Chief Justice has emphasized that judicial independence is not negotiable and that legal officers must remain steadfast in applying the law regardless of public or political pressure.
As Uganda continues to navigate its complex political and legal landscape, the Judiciary’s role in safeguarding constitutional values and ensuring justice remains paramount. How it manages to balance these responsibilities in the face of mounting criticism will shape the country’s democratic journey in the years to come.
