DDN Legal Consultancy

02/05/2025

Title: Unlawful Detention, Constitutional Contempt, and the Rule of Law in Uganda: A Legal Analysis of the UHRC Directive Against Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba. By: Isaac Christopher Lubogo

I. Brief Facts

On April 27, 2025, Edward Ssebuufu (a.k.a. Eddie Mutwe), chief bodyguard to opposition leader Bobi Wine, was allegedly abducted by men in military attire. His whereabouts remained unknown until May 1, when Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba, Chief of Defence Forces (CDF) and son to President Museveni, admitted on social media that he had Mutwe "in his basement" and made degrading threats.

On May 2, 2025, the Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC), chaired by Hon. Mariam Wangadya, issued a formal directive ordering the immediate release of Eddie Mutwe, citing unlawful detention and warning the CDF of potential contempt under Article 53(1)(d) of the Constitution.

II. Legal and Constitutional Issues

1. Violation of Article 23(1) – Right to personal liberty:

A person shall not be deprived of personal liberty except in accordance with a procedure established by law.

Mutwe's detention without trial, judicial warrant, or lawful remand exceeds 48 hours and is prima facie unconstitutional.

2. Violation of Article 24 and 44(a) – Freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment:

The image shared of a bloodied, shirtless detainee and the public threats constitute torture and degrading treatment, which is non-derogable even in a state of emergency.

3. Violation of Article 221 – Accountability of security organs:

The UPDF and its officers are bound to observe and respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens.

4. Contempt under Article 53(1)(d) – Obligation to comply with UHRC directives:

Failure to release Mutwe following the Commission’s directive exposes the CDF to constitutional contempt, which may trigger enforcement proceedings.

5. Abuse of military power and civilian jurisdiction – Military custody of civilians is illegal:

The Detention of civilians by military forces, without lawful military court jurisdiction, violates Article 210 and the UPDF Act, which clearly separates military and civilian justice systems.

III. Legal Consequences and Challenges

Personal liability may attach to Gen. Muhoozi if the unlawful detention continues, under both constitutional and international human rights law.

UHRC’s authority may be undermined if its directive is ignored, raising a constitutional crisis about the independence and enforceability of national institutions.

International attention and regional sanctions may result, especially under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, to which Uganda is a signatory.

Judicial review proceedings could be filed before the High Court seeking a habeas corpus order, declaratory relief, and compensation for unlawful detention and torture.

IV. Remedies Available Under Ugandan Law

1. Habeas Corpus (Article 23(9) & Judicature (Habeas Corpus) Act)

Can be filed immediately in the High Court to compel production and release of Eddie Mutwe.

2. UHRC Enforcement Mechanism

Under the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, 2019, the Commission may petition court to enforce its directives or cite contempt proceedings.

3. Civil Suit for Damages

A claim for torture, false imprisonment, and assault may be instituted in the High Court against the UPDF and Gen. Muhoozi personally.

4. Petition to the Constitutional Court

Challenge the legality of Mutwe’s detention and military overreach under Article 137.

5. Referral to International Human Rights Bodies

If domestic remedies fail, the case may be escalated to the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights or the UN Human Rights Council.

The UHRC’s directive is constitutionally valid and binding. The continued detention of Eddie Mutwe is not only a gross violation of fundamental rights, but a test of Uganda’s constitutional order and rule of law ahead of the 2026 elections. Should the directive be ignored, it will raise serious legal and political consequences, both domestically and internationally.

The Constitution must not yield to impunity—even when power wears military boots.

# Suigeneris

03/03/2025

𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐢 𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐩𝐲𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐒𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐔𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐧 𝐀𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬

Big win for Uganda’s creatives! President Museveni has given the green light to a Copyright Management System to protect musicians and ensure they earn from their work.

“Now technology should be able to tell us who has played my song and where,” said President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni Museveni during a meeting in Rwakitura with top officials & musicians.

The Copyright Management System will:
✅ Register musicians' works
✅ Track usage in bars, TVs & radios
✅ Ensure artists get paid for plays
✅ End music piracy

How it works: Businesses like bars, radio & TV stations will need a licensed device to play Ugandan music. The system will monitor and ensure musicians earn a fair share.

Example: If a bar pays Shs. 1M for a music license, artists will get paid based on play counts. A song played 60 times earns 60% of the fee

Enforcement:
Bars must install a device to track plays
UCC will monitor compliance

Uganda Police will enforce the law

Non-compliant businesses risk closure

Why it matters: Many musicians struggle financially after their peak years. This system ensures lifetime earnings from their songs, benefiting both artists & their families.

The project was developed by State House scientists under Eng. Sheba Kyobutungi. Agencies like UCC, URA , and Uganda Police will work together to enforce compliance.

With this system, Uganda’s creative industry is set for a new era of professionalism & financial stability. Huge step forward for copyright protection & artist empowerment.

Eddy Kenzo

01/01/2025

Property ownership in Uganda is not and must not be tied to residence in Uganda.”— Honorable Justice Christopher Gashirabake, JA in Ismailia Building Company Limited & 3 Others v. Attorney General & 4 Others, Constitutional Petition No. 37 of 2019



The Constitutional Court of Uganda declared Section 9(1) of the Expropriated Properties Act, which empowered the Minister to dispose off property belonging to former owners (primarily registered owners or proprietors of land who were either expelled or forced to flee from Uganda during Amin’s military regime Indians) who, after being authorized to repossess their property, failed to physically return to Uganda within 120 days, unconstitutional. The Court found it to contravene Article 26 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to property.



While declaring Section 9(1) of the Expropriated Properties Act unconstitutional, the Constitutional Court amongst others held that:

1. The right to own property is a fundamental right in Uganda. It must not be violated unless explicitly authorized by a law that aligns with the Constitution.



2. Expropriation is an extreme measure concerning private property rights. It results in a loss of ownership and goes beyond mere limitation of the right. Section 9(1) violates Article 26 by imposing conditions inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee that “everyone” has the right to own property.



3. The failure of former owners to return to Uganda within 120 days of authorization to repossess their property does not align with the permissible grounds for deprivation of property under Article 26(2) of the Constitution.



4. Section 9(1) infringes on the right to equality by imposing discriminatory conditions on former owners. Equality requires that laws, policies, and enforcement mechanisms be free from arbitrariness or discrimination.

5. Former owners maintain an interest in expropriated properties even before receiving repossession certificates. Their properties were compulsorily taken from them without compensation, through no fault of their own. Requiring these owners to physically return and reside in Uganda as a precondition to exercising their property rights undermines their legitimate interests, thereby infringing on the right to property safeguarded by Article 26.



This landmark decision reaffirms the principle that property rights transcend physical presence

10/12/2024

East Africa Law Society has equally condemned Uganda Law Council for denying Kenyan lawyer and former Justice Minister, Martha Karua a practicing certificate to represent her client, Dr Kizza Besigye at the General Court Martial in Kampala.

10/12/2024

Law Society of Kenya stands with Martha Karua, condemned the decision of Law Council of Ugandan to deny Martha Karua temporary practicing certificate and threatened to suspend the Uganda Lawyers practicing in Kenya.

Law Council of Uganda have not substantiated their grounds of refusal to grant special practicing certificate to Martha Karua and this brought public shriek and condemnations both from Uganda and Kenya. This may impede cross-border legal cooperation between Uganda and Kenya.

Let's continue to watch the space for the resolve of this legal rift.

DDN Legal Consultancy

09/12/2024

*In the matter of an application for a temporary practising certificate for Ms Martha Wangari Karua( senior counsel) on the case of Dr. KIZA besigye and Obedi Lutale By Isaac Christopher Lubogo*

I strongly rebut the decision of the Law Council to deny the applicant for a special certificate application for a Special Practising Certificate. Here's a detailed response to each of the issues raised:

1. Lack of Notarised Documents

The Law Council's requirement for notarised copies of her Practising Certificate, letter of good standing, nationality documents, and academic qualifications is not a valid ground for denial. Section 18 of the Advocates Act does not explicitly require notarisation of these documents. Moreover, the Law Council could have requested these documents instead of outrightly denying my application.

2.Non-Compliance with the Current Advocates Act

The Law Council's observation that the application was not brought under the current Advocates Act, Cap. 295 is a technicality that should not have led to the denial of her application. As a legal practitioner from Kenya, she relied on the information provided by Mr. Erias Lukwago, who invited her to lead the defence team.

3. Discretionary Power of the Law Council

While it is true that the power to admit a lawyer to practice temporarily in Uganda is discretionary, the Law Council's decision should be based on reasonable and justifiable grounds. In this case, the grounds for denial are largely technical and do not justify the refusal of her application.

4.Political Agenda

The Law Council's observation that her involvement in the case is "tinged with a political agenda" is unfounded and speculative. As a legal practitioner, her role is to provide legal representation to her clients, regardless of any political considerations.

5. Potential Witness

The Law Council's concern that she is a potential witness in the case is not a valid ground for denial. As a legal practitioner, she is aware of the rules of professional conduct, including the rule against being a witness in a case in which she is also acting as counsel.

6.Conduct in Uganda

The Law Council's criticism of her conduct in Uganda, including her appearance at the General Court Martial and the Supreme Court, is unfair and misleading. As a legal practitioner, she is entitled to represent her clients in any court of law, and her conduct is entirely professional and respectful.

6.Special Skills or Knowledge

The Law Council's observation that she does not intend to bring any special skills or knowledge that the contingent of legal practitioners in Uganda do not hold is not a valid ground for denial. As a legal practitioner from Kenya, she brings a unique perspective and expertise that can benefit her clients, especially due to the fact that the so called crime was occasioned in Kenya where she is held in the highest legal esteem and expertise.

In conclusion, I strongly believe that the Law Council's decision to deny her application for a special Practicing certificate is unjustified and unreasonable. I urge the Law Council to reconsider its decision and grant her the necessary certification to represent her clients in Uganda.

DDN Legal Consultancy

06/12/2024

IS IT LEGAL TO TRY CIVILIANS IN MILITARY COURTS IN UGANDA (WHAT'S THE JURISPRUDENCE ABOUT IT )

The legality of trying civilians in a court martial in Uganda has been a contentious issue, debated both in jurisprudence and through case law. The question revolves around the interpretation of the Constitution of Uganda (1995) and the Uganda People’s Defence Forces Act (2005. Below is an analysis based on Ugandan jurisprudence and current case law:

1. Legal Framework
(a) The Constitution of Uganda (1995):
Article 210: Grants Parliament the power to regulate the UPDF, including the establishment of courts martial.

Article 126(1) :Stipulates that judicial power shall be exercised by courts established under the Constitution, ensuring justice for all.
Article 28: Guarantees the right to a fair hearing by an independent, impartial court or tribunal established by law.

The Constitution does not explicitly allow or prohibit the trial of civilians in courts martial, leaving the issue to interpretation.

(b) The UPDF Act (2005):
Section 119(1)(g)–(h): Extends military law to civilians who:
- Collaborate with armed forces in committing an offense.
- Possess weapons or military stores unlawfully.
- These provisions have been used to justify trying civilians in courts martial.

2. Jurisprudence and Key Case Law
Several court decisions in Uganda have addressed this issue, with mixed interpretations:
(a) Uganda Law Society v. Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 18 of 2005):
Issue:The Uganda Law Society challenged the trial of civilians in courts martial as unconstitutional.
Decision :The Constitutional Court ruled that trying civilians in military courts violates their right to a fair trial as guaranteed under Article 28 of the Constitution.
Reasoning: Military courts lack independence and impartiality necessary for trying civilians. Civilians should be tried in ordinary courts unless expressly permitted by law.

(b) Kassim Nakibinge v. Uganda (Supreme Court, 2017):
Issue: Nakibinge, a civilian, was charged with unlawful possession of fi****ms and tried by a court martial.
Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the trial, reasoning that civilians can be tried in military courts under Section 119 of the UPDF Act if the offense falls under military law.
-
Reasoning:The possession of fi****ms and other military stores is a security-related offense that justifies court-martial jurisdiction.

(c) Joseph Tumushabe v. Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 2017):
Issue: This case revisited the constitutionality of civilians being tried in courts martial.
- Decision:The Constitutional Court emphasized that courts martial should only try civilians in exceptional circumstances explicitly outlined in the UPDF Act. Ordinary courts remain the proper forum for civilian cases.

(d) Recent Trends:
- Recent cases have seen courts martial trying civilians for offenses like terrorism and illegal possession of military-grade weapons, leading to criticism from human rights groups. The judiciary has frequently expressed concerns about the overreach of military tribunals into civilian matters.

3. Legal and Practical Concerns
(a) Fair Trial Standards:
- Courts martial often lack transparency, independence, and impartiality, raising doubts about their ability to meet fair trial standards under Article 28 of the Constitution.

(b) Civilian vs. Military Offenses:
- The determination of whether an offense qualifies as "military" is sometimes ambiguous, leading to civilians being unfairly subjected to military trials.
(c) Prolonged Detention:
- Civilians accused of military-related offenses face extended periods of detention due to delays in court-martial proceedings, violating constitutional rights to a speedy trial.

4. Conclusion: Current Legal Position
- Permissible in Limited Circumstances:Ugandan law, specifically Section 119 of the UPDF Act, permits trying civilians in courts martial in narrowly defined cases, such as possession of military equipment or collaboration with the armed forces.
- Constitutional Concerns Persist: Courts have increasingly emphasized that trying civilians in military courts should be the exception, not the norm, to align with constitutional guarantees of fair trial rights.

The balance between national security and individual rights remains a challenge, and ongoing judicial scrutiny continues to shape this area of law.

28/02/2024

28/11/2023

IMPORTANT NOTICE TO LAND OWNERS

All registered proprietors of land are advised to update the Department of Land Registration under the Ministry of Lands, Housing, and Urban Development with their current postal address, email address, and verified telephone contacts that match their N.I.N. or passport details.

This will enable you to receive notifications of any transactions on your land title. Let's fight land fraud.

16/11/2023

From Justice Center Uganda on Modes of Land Ownership in Uganda.
Acquaint yourself

25/03/2023

DDN Legal Consultancy is pleased to have been contracted to write the constitution of Bahr el Ghazal Students’ Association in St. Lawrence University.
Therefore, announce the conclusion and completion of the work.
We appreciates your trust, patience and working closely together in completion of this constitution.

DDN Legal Consultancy wishes BASA-SLAU all the best in application of its constitution and we hope to work with you again in the near future if need arise.

Contact us for any kind of constitution for any kind of body and will be executed in shortest time possible.

Thanks!