Ending torture in Uganda remains an unfinished struggle

Despite a robust legal framework prohibiting torture, including constitutional provisions and the Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act, 2012, Uganda continues to grapple with widespread incidents of torture. Freedom from torture is a non-derogable right and a peremptory norm of international law, which Uganda has affirmed through ratification of key international instruments like the UN Convention Against Torture. However, the practical implementation and enforcement of these laws remain significantly challenged by issues such as impunity for perpetrators, institutional weaknesses within security agencies, and a lack of effective accountability mechanisms. This article examines the legal landscape, persistent challenges, and the implications for legal practitioners in Uganda.

Freedom from torture stands as one of the most fundamental and universally protected human rights, recognized as a *jus cogens* principle of international law, admitting no derogation even in times of emergency. Uganda has historically prided itself on its commitment to this principle, being among the first African nations to ratify the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) in 1987. Domestically, the prohibition of torture is enshrined in the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda and further elaborated in the Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act, 2012.

However, the existence of comprehensive legal instruments has not translated into the eradication of torture in practice. Reports from various human rights bodies consistently highlight a significant gap between the law on paper and its enforcement on the ground. This article delves into Uganda's legal framework against torture, analyzes the persistent challenges hindering its effective implementation, and discusses the implications for legal professionals working to uphold this crucial human right.

Uganda's commitment to prohibiting torture is deeply embedded in its supreme law. Article 24 of the 1995 Constitution explicitly states that "No person shall be subjected to any form of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." This prohibition is further reinforced by Article 44(a), which declares freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment as a non-derogable right, meaning it cannot be suspended under any circumstances.

To give effect to these constitutional provisions and its international obligations under UNCAT, which Uganda ratified in 1987, Parliament enacted the Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act, 2012 (PPTA). This Act criminalizes torture, defines various forms of the offence, and prescribes penalties, including imprisonment for up to 15 years for torture and life imprisonment for aggravated torture. The PPTA also makes evidence obtained through torture inadmissible in court, prohibits the use of such information, and excludes granting amnesty to individuals accused of torture. In 2017, the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs adopted regulations to the PPTA, providing a framework for handling torture complaints and investigations.

Regionally, Uganda is a State Party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, having ratified it on May 10, 1986. Article 5 of the African Charter similarly prohibits all forms of exploitation and degradation, particularly torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment. The Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC), established under Article 51(1) of the 1995 Constitution and operationalized by the Uganda Human Rights Commission Act of 1997, serves as the primary national institution mandated to promote, protect, and enforce human rights, including investigating complaints of torture and recommending remedies.

Despite the robust legal architecture, the struggle to end torture in Uganda remains unfinished. The Uganda Human Rights Commission consistently identifies freedom from torture as the most violated human right in the country, accounting for a significant percentage of complaints received annually. Data from organizations like the African Centre for Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture Victims (ACTV) corroborates this, with thousands of survivors registered between 2016 and 2020.

The primary perpetrators of torture are often state security agencies, including the Uganda Police Force (UPF), Uganda People's Defence Forces (UPDF), and the Internal Security Organisation (ISO). Allegations frequently involve torture in ungazetted detention facilities, commonly known as 'safe houses,' where detainees are deprived of legal safeguards and subjected to severe ill-treatment. Methods reported include severe beatings, waterboarding, and other forms of physical and psychological abuse.

A critical challenge lies in the ineffective enforcement and implementation of the PPTA, 2012. While the law exists, there is a noted lack of capacity to investigate, document, and prosecute cases of torture effectively. The Uganda Police Force, for instance, often records torture cases as mere assault under the Penal Code Act, Cap 120, rather than utilizing the specific provisions and medico-legal documentation forms (Form 4) designed for torture cases under the PPTA. This systemic issue contributes to the low number of criminal prosecutions against public officials for torture, fostering a culture of impunity.

Even when victims are awarded compensation by the UHRC or courts, actual receipt of the funds remains a significant hurdle. The policy dictates that the institution responsible for the torture must pay the awards, which has proven ineffective in practice. For example, in 2017, the High Court in Kampala ruled that 22 suspects in the murder case of AIGP Kaweesi were tortured in detention and awarded compensation, yet no criminal charges were instituted against the perpetrators. Furthermore, victims often fear reprisal from perpetrators, deterring them from reporting incidents or pursuing justice.

Uganda's failure to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (OPCAT) and establish a National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) further exacerbates the problem. An NPM would provide an independent and effective system to monitor places of detention, thereby enhancing the detection and prevention of torture. Currently, the UHRC's monitoring mandate is constrained, particularly regarding access to ungazetted facilities.

The journey towards eradicating torture in Uganda, despite strong constitutional and statutory prohibitions, remains a formidable challenge. The persistent gap between legal provisions and practical implementation underscores the need for renewed political will and concrete actions to ensure accountability and justice for victims. The prevalence of torture, particularly by state security agencies and in 'safe houses,' highlights systemic failures in enforcement, investigation, and prosecution.

For legal practitioners, this unfinished struggle presents both a moral imperative and a professional challenge. Attorneys must continue to leverage existing domestic and international legal avenues to seek redress for torture victims, including civil compensation claims and advocating for criminal prosecutions under the PPTA. There is a critical need for increased advocacy for the ratification of OPCAT and the establishment of an effective National Preventive Mechanism to allow for independent monitoring of all detention facilities. Practitioners should also support and collaborate with civil society organizations like ACTV and the UHRC, which play vital roles in documenting abuses, providing rehabilitation, and pushing for reforms. Vigilance in monitoring government compliance with its human rights obligations and challenging impunity through strategic litigation will be crucial in moving Uganda closer to a society where freedom from torture is not just a right on paper, but a lived reality for all.