General Muhoozi Kainerugaba's Grip on Freedoms Tightens

Uganda is currently experiencing a significant erosion of civil liberties, marked by the recent arrests of prominent opposition figures and their legal counsel, coupled with the abrupt shutdown of major independent media outlets. These actions, reportedly ordered by General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, the President's son and army chief, signal a tightening grip on fundamental freedoms ahead of the 2026 general elections. The trials of opposition leader Kizza Besigye on treason charges and his lawyer, Erias Lukwago, on charges of failing to reveal a plot against the state, alongside the deportation of Besigye's Kenyan lawyer, Martha Karua, highlight a concerning trend. This legal article examines the statutory and jurisprudential context of these developments, focusing on the constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and assembly, the contentious application of restrictive laws like the Public Order Management Act and Computer Misuse Act, and the ongoing challenge to military jurisdiction over civilians, despite recent Supreme Court pronouncements.

Uganda's political landscape is currently witnessing a troubling escalation in the suppression of dissent, with recent events pointing to a concerted effort to curtail civic space. The country's army chief, General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, who is also the President's son, has reportedly ordered the arrest of leading activists and politicians, and, in a stark move, shut down the nation's main independent media group. These actions have culminated in the appearance in court of veteran opposition figure Kizza Besigye and his lawyer, Erias Lukwago, facing charges that critics argue are politically motivated.

This clampdown extends beyond individual arrests, encompassing a direct assault on media freedom, as evidenced by General Kainerugaba's public declaration of disbelief in a free press and the subsequent military occupation of Nation Media Group premises. Such developments raise profound questions about the rule of law, constitutionalism, and the future of democratic governance in Uganda. This article will delve into the legal frameworks governing these freedoms, analyze the application of relevant statutes and case law, and explore the implications for legal practitioners and the broader human rights landscape in Uganda.

The Republic of Uganda's Constitution of 1995 enshrines fundamental human rights and freedoms, notably under Article 29, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression (including freedom of the press and other media), freedom of thought, conscience, belief, peaceful assembly, and association. Article 41 further provides for the right of access to information in the possession of the State, subject to certain limitations. However, these constitutional guarantees are often juxtaposed against a suite of legislative instruments that have historically been used to restrict these very freedoms.

Key among these are the Public Order Management Act (POMA) of 2013, which regulates public gatherings and has been criticized for imposing onerous notification requirements and granting broad discretionary powers to law enforcement. Although Section 8 of POMA, which allowed police to arbitrarily prevent or stop public gatherings, was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court in 2020, the entire Act has been found to contradict the constitution. Similarly, the Computer Misuse Act of 2011, initially intended to address cybercrime, has been weaponized to suppress digital rights and free expression. While Section 25, penalizing "offensive communication," was declared null and void by the Constitutional Court in January 2023, subsequent amendments in late 2022 continue to pose significant curtailments to freedom of expression by prohibiting the sharing of "malicious" or "misleading" information.

Another critical piece of legislation is the Press and Journalist Act (Cap 105) of 1995, which mandates journalists to register with a statutory Media Council and obtain practicing certificates, with Section 27 criminalizing practice without such certification. This requirement has been widely condemned as an impediment to press freedom. Furthermore, the Penal Code Act includes provisions for criminal defamation, which can be used to stifle critical reporting. These laws, despite constitutional safeguards, have created a complex and often restrictive legal environment for activists, journalists, and political opponents in Uganda.

The recent actions, including the arrests of Kizza Besigye and Erias Lukwago, and the media shutdown, must be analyzed against the backdrop of Uganda's constitutional and jurisprudential developments. Kizza Besigye, a perennial opposition figure, faces long-standing treason charges, having been detained since his abduction from Kenya in 2024. His lawyer, Erias Lukwago, was arrested in June 2026, accused of failing to reveal an alleged plot against the state, with General Kainerugaba publicly threatening him. This pattern of targeting legal counsel is further exemplified by the deportation of Martha Karua, a Kenyan human rights lawyer representing Besigye, who was classified as a prohibited immigrant without due process.

A critical legal challenge arises from the involvement of military personnel in civilian arrests and the purported jurisdiction of military courts over civilians. The Supreme Court of Uganda, in a landmark ruling on January 31, 2025, unequivocally declared that military courts lack jurisdiction to try civilians and ordered the transfer of all such cases to the civilian court system. This decision affirmed earlier Constitutional Court rulings that found provisions of the Uganda Peoples' Defence Forces (UPDF) Act, which allowed military courts to try civilians, unconstitutional. However, despite this clear judicial pronouncement, Parliament passed the 2025 Uganda Peoples' Defence Forces (Amendment) Bill in May 2025, seeking to re-establish military court jurisdiction over civilians for crimes connected to the army, a bill awaiting presidential assent. This legislative attempt to circumvent a Supreme Court ruling raises serious concerns about the separation of powers and adherence to judicial independence.

The shutdown of Nation Media Group outlets (Daily Monitor, NTV Uganda, Spark TV, KFM, and Dembe FM) by military order, with General Kainerugaba explicitly stating his disbelief in a free press, constitutes a direct assault on Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution. Legal experts and human rights organizations have condemned this as an illegal act, emphasizing that any concerns regarding media organizations should be addressed through established legal and regulatory procedures under the Uganda Communications Act, 2013, and the Press and Journalist Act, 1995, not through arbitrary military action. The arbitrary nature of these actions, coupled with the General's public threats, suggests a disregard for due process and the constitutional right to freedom of expression and media freedom.

Furthermore, the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act of 2019, enacted to give effect to Article 50(4) of the Constitution, provides a mechanism for holding public officials personally liable for human rights violations and allows courts to nullify proceedings where non-derogable rights have been violated. This Act could potentially be invoked by those affected by the recent crackdowns, including Besigye and Lukwago, to challenge the legality of their arrests, detention, and the broader infringement on their rights. The ongoing trials and the legal challenges mounted by the opposition, such as Besigye's application to the High Court challenging his detention and the deportation of his lawyer, underscore the critical role of the judiciary in upholding constitutionalism amidst executive overreach.

Comparatively, international human rights instruments, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR), to which Uganda is a signatory, also guarantee freedom of expression and fair trial rights. The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights has consistently held that military courts should not, under any circumstances, have jurisdiction over civilians. The current situation in Uganda, therefore, not only violates domestic constitutional provisions but also contravenes Uganda's international human rights obligations, drawing significant international scrutiny.

The recent arrests of prominent opposition figures and their legal representatives, coupled with the arbitrary shutdown of independent media outlets in Uganda, represent a severe challenge to the nation's constitutional framework and its commitment to democratic principles. The actions, reportedly spearheaded by General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, underscore a concerning trend where legal instruments are seemingly weaponized to stifle political dissent and curtail fundamental freedoms, particularly in the lead-up to the 2026 general elections. The ongoing legal battles, including Kizza Besigye's treason trial and challenges to the military's jurisdiction over civilians, will be crucial tests for the independence and efficacy of Uganda's judiciary.

For legal practitioners, these developments necessitate a heightened vigilance and robust defense of constitutional rights. Lawyers involved in human rights and media law must be prepared to navigate a complex and often hostile legal environment, leveraging both domestic legislation, such as the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, and international human rights standards. The international community and civil society organizations must continue to monitor the situation closely, advocating for adherence to the rule of law, respect for judicial independence, and the protection of fundamental freedoms of expression, assembly, and the press. The outcome of these trials and the response to the media crackdown will be indicative of Uganda's trajectory concerning civil liberties and democratic governance.