By: Mwiine Andrew Kaggwa
As Uganda prepares for its 2026 general elections, the issue of torture and its legal framework remains a critical concern, given the country’s history of human rights violations during electoral periods. The 1995 Constitution of Uganda, specifically Articles 24, 43, and 44(a), provides a robust legal foundation for protecting individuals from torture and ensuring human dignity. However, reports of torture, arbitrary detentions, and other abuses by state security forces persist, raising questions about the enforcement of these constitutional provisions and their implications for the upcoming elections. This analysis decodes the legal footprint of torture under these articles, examines their interplay, and assesses their relevance in the context of Uganda’s 2026 electoral landscape.
Article 24 of the 1995 Constitution explicitly states: “No person shall be subjected to any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” This provision establishes an absolute prohibition on torture and related abuses, aligning with Uganda’s obligations under international human rights law, such as the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), ratified by Uganda in 1987. The article is unequivocal, offering no exceptions and emphasizing the state’s duty to protect human dignity.
The Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act, 2012, further operationalizes Article 24 by criminalizing torture, defining it as any act causing severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, when intentionally inflicted by a public official or with their acquiescence. The Act allows for penalties of up to 15 years imprisonment or fines, and it deems confessions obtained through torture inadmissible in court, except as evidence against the perpetrator.
Article 44(a) of the 1995 Constitution reinforces Article 24 by declaring that the freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment is non-derogable: “Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, there shall be no derogation from the enjoyment of the following rights and freedoms: (a) freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” This means that even in states of emergency, as addressed under Article 46 of the 1995 Constitution, the prohibition on torture remains absolute and cannot be suspended under any circumstances.
This non-derogable status aligns with international standards, such as Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Geneva Conventions, which Uganda ratified in 1991. These treaties prohibit torture and ill-treatment universally, emphasizing the principle of humanity.
Article 43 of the 1995 Constitution provides a framework for limiting certain fundamental rights under specific conditions: “In the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms prescribed in this Chapter, no person shall prejudice the fundamental or other human rights and freedoms of others or the public interest.” It allows restrictions on rights if they are demonstrably justifiable in a democratic society, balancing individual freedoms with societal needs. However, Article 44(a) explicitly excludes the right to freedom from torture from such limitations, ensuring that no justification whether public interest, national security, or otherwise can override this right.
The interplay between Articles 43 and 44(a) is critical in that while Article 43 permits limitations on rights like freedom of assembly or expression during elections to maintain public order, Article 44(a) ensures that torture remains an absolute prohibition. This distinction is vital in the electoral context, where state security forces may cite public safety to justify heavy-handed tactics, but such actions cannot legally extend to torture or ill-treatment.
Despite this robust legal framework, torture remains a persistent issue in Uganda, particularly during politically charged periods like elections. Reports from Human Rights Watch, the Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC), and other organizations document widespread torture by security forces, including the Uganda Police Force, the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF), and the Internal Security Organization (ISO).
In the past elections for instance, particularly in 2001, 2016, and 2021, saw spikes in torture and arbitrary detentions, often targeting opposition supporters and critics of President Yoweri Museveni’s government. For instance, during the 2021 elections, security forces were implicated in enforced disappearances, unlawful detentions in “safehouses,” and torture of opposition figures like National Unity Platform (NUP) supporters. Cases like that of Kakwenza Rukirabashaija, who in 2021 suffered 63 scars from torture by Special Forces Command (SFC) officers after criticizing the government, highlight the brutality faced by dissidents. Similarly, Musa Nsereko’s 2023 High Court case resulted in compensation for torture by ISO officials, underscoring judicial acknowledgment of these violations.
As the 2026 elections approach, reports indicate a rise in oppressive practices, including torture, arbitrary arrests, and abductions of opposition figures like Bobi Wine’s bodyguard, Eddie Mutwe, who was tortured and charged with dubious offenses. The UHRC reported 1,803 torture complaints from 2015 to 2020, with an average of over 300 cases annually. The UN Committee Against Torture in 2022 noted that torture remains “widespread and frequently practiced” in Uganda, often in unauthorized detention centers. The UPDF Amendment Bill 2025, passed in May 2025, has normalized the trial of civilians in military courts, raising concerns about increased torture risks due to the lack of transparency in military detention facilities.
The legal footprint of Articles 24 and 44(a) is clear: torture is unequivocally prohibited, non-derogable, and criminalized. However, enforcement faces significant challenges including impunity in that despite legal provisions, perpetrators of torture, particularly security officials, often face no consequences. The UHRC and parliamentary investigations have called for prosecutions, but follow-through is rare. The UHRC, despite calling out General MK’s X Space direct show of Eddie Mutwe being in his basement learning a particular language did not amount to much, showing how torture has become notorious of se