Matembe charged, remanded over promoting sectarianism

Veteran Ugandan political activist and former Ethics and Integrity minister, Miria Matembe, has been charged with promoting sectarianism and remanded to Luzira Prison. The 73-year-old appeared before a Grade One Magistrate at the Luzira Chief Magistrate’s court, where she denied the charge. The prosecution alleges that Matembe made statements on a televised program claiming that "all our taxes are being spent on the Banyankole women ministers," remarks deemed likely to incite hostility against the Banyankole ethnic group. This development reignites debate over the application of Uganda's anti-sectarianism laws and their potential impact on freedom of expression and political dissent, particularly for outspoken government critics. Her bail application was deferred due to procedural non-compliance.

The recent charging and remand of Miria Matembe, a prominent Ugandan political activist and former Minister for Ethics and Integrity, on allegations of promoting sectarianism, has sent ripples through Uganda's legal and political landscape. Matembe, aged 73, was brought before the Luzira Chief Magistrate’s court, where she pleaded not guilty to the charge before being remanded to Luzira Prison until July 1, 2026. This incident underscores the persistent tension between national unity objectives, as enshrined in anti-sectarianism laws, and the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression in Uganda.

The case has drawn significant public attention, not only due to Matembe's stature as a long-standing critic of government policies but also because of the contentious nature of the offence itself. Legal practitioners and human rights advocates are closely monitoring the proceedings, as the interpretation and application of sectarianism laws have historically been a point of contention, often perceived as tools to stifle political dissent. This article will delve into the legal framework surrounding the charge of promoting sectarianism in Uganda, examine the implications for freedom of expression, and consider the procedural aspects of Matembe's remand.

The legal foundation for the charge of promoting sectarianism in Uganda is primarily found in the Penal Code Act, Cap. 120. Specifically, Section 41 (also referred to as Section 38(1)(d) in some contexts) criminalises statements or acts that are likely to degrade, revile, expose to hatred or contempt, create alienation or despondency, raise discontent or disaffection, or promote ill-will or hostility among or against any group or body of persons on the basis of religion, tribe, ethnic or regional origin. The offence carries a maximum punishment of five years' imprisonment. This provision was enacted with the intention of fostering national cohesion and preventing discrimination, particularly in a country with diverse ethnic and religious groups.

Uganda's Constitution, 1995, guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms, including freedom of speech and expression under Article 29(1)(a). However, Article 43 of the Constitution allows for limitations on these rights in the public interest, provided such limitations are acceptable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. The Penal Code Act, a colonial-era statute, has been criticised for containing provisions, including those on sectarianism, that are seen as potentially undermining constitutional freedoms. The Magistrates Courts Act, Cap. 16, outlines the jurisdiction of magistrates' courts. A Grade One Magistrate, such as Sheilah Gloria Atim who presided over Matembe's case, has the power to hear any criminal case except those whose maximum punishment is death or life imprisonment, and can impose a sentence not exceeding ten years. This jurisdiction comfortably covers the offence of promoting sectarianism.

Miria Matembe's charge stems from alleged statements made on DK TV Uganda, where she reportedly claimed that "all our taxes are being spent on the Banyankole women ministers." The prosecution contends that these remarks were likely to promote hostility, hatred, or ill-will against members of the Banyankole ethnic group, thereby falling squarely within the ambit of Section 41 of the Penal Code Act. The core legal challenge in such cases often revolves around balancing the state's legitimate interest in preventing incitement to hatred and maintaining public order against an individual's right to freedom of expression, particularly when criticising government policies or perceived inequalities.

Critics of the sectarianism law argue that its broad wording can be susceptible to abuse, leading to the criminalisation of legitimate political commentary or criticism. There is a historical pattern of charging journalists and political opponents with sectarianism, raising concerns about its use as a tool to suppress dissent rather than genuinely combatting ethnic or religious animosity. For instance, the Bizonto Comedy Group faced similar charges after a skit critical of perceived favouritism towards politicians from western Uganda. The defence in Matembe's case will likely hinge on whether her statements, in context, genuinely intended to incite hatred or were a form of political commentary on governance and resource allocation, however provocative.

The procedural aspect of Matembe's remand also highlights a critical point for practitioners. The Grade One Magistrate declined to consider her bail application immediately, citing non-compliance with the judiciary's electronic filing procedures. While adherence to court procedures is paramount, the circumstances surrounding her arrest and the urgency of a bail hearing, especially given her age and reported frail health, underscore the need for judicial officers to balance strict procedural requirements with the fundamental right to liberty and access to justice. The Magistrates Courts (Amendment) Act, 2026, has recently expanded the jurisdiction of magistrates, but the procedural requirements for bail remain critical.

Furthermore, the element of 'likelihood' to promote hostility or ill-will is subjective and open to interpretation. Courts must carefully consider the context, audience, and potential impact of the statements to determine if they cross the threshold from protected speech to criminal incitement. This often involves a high evidential burden on the prosecution to prove not just the utterance of the words, but their direct and probable effect on public order and inter-group relations. The Supreme Court of Uganda has previously held that limitations on fundamental rights are exceptions and must be demonstrably justified.

The case of Miria Matembe serves as a critical reminder to legal practitioners in Uganda of the delicate balance between national security and public order laws, and the constitutional right to freedom of expression. Defence counsel in similar cases must be prepared to robustly challenge the interpretation and application of Section 41 of the Penal Code Act, arguing for a narrow construction that safeguards legitimate political discourse. This includes scrutinising the prosecution's evidence regarding the 'likelihood' of statements to incite sectarianism and advocating for the protection of speech that, while critical or even provocative, does not genuinely cross into hate speech.

Practitioners should also remain vigilant regarding procedural fairness, particularly concerning bail applications, and be prepared to navigate the evolving electronic filing requirements while asserting their clients' fundamental rights. The ongoing debate surrounding the sectarianism law necessitates continued advocacy for legal reforms that align Uganda's statutes more closely with international human rights standards and the spirit of its own Constitution. This case will undoubtedly contribute to the jurisprudence on freedom of expression and the limits of anti-sectarianism laws in Uganda, making it a pivotal matter for all legal professionals to observe closely.