By Keneth Kitambula
Freedom from torture is one of the most firmly protected rights under international and domestic law. It is also recognized as a peremptory principle of international law (jus cogens), and it admits no derogation whatsoever, including in emergency situations.
Uganda takes pride in being one of the first countries on the continent to ratify the UN Convention Against Torture in 1987, a clear indication of its long-standing commitment, at least in principle, to eradicate torture and protect human dignity.
This foundation was subsequently strengthened through constitutional and legislative mechanisms, as provided for under Articles 24 and 44 of the 1995 Constitution, the Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act, Cap 22 enacted in 2012, and its Regulations of 2017. The Act defines torture and expands accountability by ensuring that liability is not limited to public officials but also extends to private individuals who perpetrate such acts.
These domestic guarantees are further complemented by Uganda’s obligations under Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) and Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Uganda is a State Party.
Every June 26, Uganda joins the rest of the world to commemorate the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. Established in 1997, the day is dedicated to condemning torture and standing in solidarity with victims worldwide. This year’s observance follows Uganda’s January 2026 general elections, which were marred by reports of torture, and compels a critical examination of our anti-torture regime.
According to the 2025 Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC) report, torture was the second most alleged human rights violation, with 117 cases documented, 25 of them in Kampala alone.
The scope of torture extends past the conventional understanding of it happening in detention or interrogation facilities, and comprises acts such as mob justice, which constitute severe violations of fundamental rights. In this context, I wish to pay tribute to former rugby player Sydney Gongodyo, a recent victim of such violence.
In recent years, Uganda has strengthened accountability for torture, mostly among state actors, with some security officers dismissed over aggravated torture, while the Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC) and courts of law have also awarded compensation to victims. While we have undertaken creditable steps in addressing one of the crimes against humanity, torture, a dystopian account persists.
Scholars such as Dr Busingye Kabumba have argued that in seeking to understand torture today, we must also recall the role it played in the formation of the contemporary Ugandan State. He further contends that Uganda’s creation and the political unity we now observe were not freely entered into by Ugandans, but were shaped through extreme violence, including war crimes and crimes against humanity such as torture. Whether one settles with this viewpoint or not, it brings to light the importance of addressing the bottomless conditions that allow torture to persist.
Effective prevention of torture depends on strong laws, which we do have, and institutions capable of monitoring, documenting and supporting accountability efforts. Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and other oversight bodies play an indispensable role in this regard. But now, with the shrinking civic space and the recent closure of CSOs such as ACTV and HRNJ, concerns arise about the weakening of independent monitoring and constrained advocacy against torture.
Further debate has risen following the Constitutional Court’s declaration in Faruku Muhamed & Others v Attorney General, which annulled Section 11(2)(a), (b), and (c) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, Cap 12. Section 11(2) of the Act, provided that if, during criminal proceedings, the judge or magistrate hearing the case determines that any non-derogable rights and freedoms of the accused have been infringed, the trial shall be rendered a nullity and the accused acquitted.
While the Court’s decision is duly respected, it has been widely viewed as a setback in efforts to strengthen safeguards for non-derogable rights in Uganda.
With these developments and more, does this mean that our efforts to combat torture are being washed away? Certainly not. Uganda already has the legal arsenal to address it, but legislation alone is not sufficient. What matters now is political will, backed by accountable institutions.
It is also time for Uganda to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (OPCAT), which would require the establishment of a National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) with the authority to access and monitor all places where persons are deprived of their liberty.
In the end, our country’s efforts to end acts of torture and ill-treatment require collective responsibility. The goal is for every Ugandan, regardless of status, to live free from fear of degrading treatment. Until torture is no longer tolerated in our country, the struggle against it remains unfinished.
The author is a Human Rights Advocate.
