MWIINE Andrew Kaggwa
In Uganda, the 1995 Constitution enshrines inherent rights as fundamental entitlements, with Article 23 guaranteeing protections against arbitrary detention and inhumane treatment, and Article 28 ensuring the right to a fair trial and presumption of innocence. These rights, intended as inalienable safeguards for all citizens, are increasingly treated as discretionary “benevolent offerings” subject to the whims of state authorities, political agendas, and systemic inefficiencies. Despite the Constitution’s robust framework, practical implementation often falls short, with delays in judicial processes, prolonged detentions without trial, and selective enforcement eroding the essence of these protections. This discussion examines how bureaucratic obstacles, socio-political pressures, and inadequate accountability mechanisms have transformed Uganda’s inherent rights into conditional privileges, undermining the constitutional promise of justice and equality for those they should benefit.
According to the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, Human Rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings, they are not granted by the state. These universal rights are inherent to us all, regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or other status. They range from the most fundamental (Right to life) to those that make life worth living such as the right to food, education, work, health, and liberty. The major concept in the definition of Human Rights is “Inherent,” which is the crux of every human right. Its omission in any way, as far as Human Rights and their application are concerned, defeats the true and natural comprehension of the essence of Human Rights internationally, regionally, and nationally.
“Inherent” literally means that a right is inalienable that it cannot be surrendered or transferred. An inherent right is that which is considered to be part of Natural Law and exists independently of rights created by government or society. They should be seen as fundamental and cannot be taken away or transferred.[1] An inherent right is something you are entitled to just because you exist. It cannot be taken away or given up, like the right to own property or the right to be free. Some rights are created by law and rules, but inherent rights are just part of being a person. They are important because they are help protect us and make sure we are treated fairly.
Human Rights being inherent speaks to the principles of universality, inalienable and indivisible meaning they apply to everyone, cannot be taken away, and are interconnected. These rights govern how individuals interact with each other and with the state, and they protect individuals state power as well as ensuring access to essential resources. Human Rights are essential for a just and equitable society. They ensure that all individuals can live with dignity, participate in society and have their basic needs met. They are the foundation for a world where everyone can reach their full potential.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, was the first legal document to set out the fundamental human rights to be universally protected. The UDHR, together with 2 covenants, the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), together make up the International Bill of Rights. The preamble of the UDHR affirms the fervency of Human Rights, it states that “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”, Article 1 of the UDHR further asserts that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” This affirms that if the inherent rights are to be practicable, the free-born being should be recognized by everyone, everywhere no matter what.
The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda under Chapter 4 commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights specifically Article 20 (1) is to the effect that “fundamental rights and freedoms of an individual are inherent and not granted by the state”. It has a nexus with Ephesians 2:8-10 which truthfully states that “for it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast…” in the same vein, no one should boast of offering an inherent right, it is just like grace given by virtual of being a child of God , so rights are inherent just by existing.
Contrary to the above, what is normatively supposed to be inherent has been made a benevolent offering by the state. The state models itself as a supreme organ holding custody of these inherent human rights and puts itself in a position of them flowing systematically to the individual and funny enough Ugandans have unequivocally accepted this and religiously worshipped its existence.
Article 23 of the 1995 Constitution provides for freedom against arbitrary detention and inhuman treatment, Article 28 further provides for fair trial and presumption of innocence, Article 21 affirms equality and non-discrimination, Article 29 provides for freedom of expression, assembly and association and Article 39 provides for a right to a clean and health environment. All these rights under Chapter 4 are supposed to be inherent and not state granted, however, in 2025, the state has showcased superficial compliance with these rights through selective action, public pronouncements or limited legal reforms while systemic barriers such as repressive legislation, executive interference and security force impunity prevent citizens from exercising these rights inherently. This has created an environment where rights are treated as discretionary privileges or “Benevolent Offerings” rather than inalienable entitlements that thrive without state obstruction.
I will now labour to demonstrate how the state has on several occasions turned around the concept of inherent-ness into benevolence in the field of respect, promotion and observance of fundamental human rights in Uganda.
According to Article 23 of the 1995 Constitution, arbitrary detention and inhuman treatment is abominable and its one of those rights protected as non-derogable under Article 44 of the Constitution. This provision also mandates court appearance within 48 hours. This aligns with Article 2 of the ICCPR. Despite this, it is publicly known that the government occasionally releases high-profile detainees to signal compliance with Article 23. For instance, on 29 April 2025, social media activist Ibrahim Musana (Pressure 24/7) was granted bail after 60 days in detention for hate speech charges, with the state citing adherence to constitutional protections. Despite releases, abductions persist, particularly targeting opposition figures. Dr. Kizza Besigye’s abduction in Nairobi in November 2024 and subsequent military court arraignment violated Article 23’s 48-hour rule and humane treatment guarantees. The Uganda Human Rights Commission reported 12 of 30 missing National Unity Platform (NUP) supporters were charged in 2025, but others remain unaccounted for, indicating enforced disappearances. Prison overcrowding, at 371.8% capacity in August 2024, with inadequate food and medical care, breaches Article 23(4)(b) and the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules, 2015). The UPDF Amendment Bill 2025, enacted on 16 June 2025, allows civilian trials in military courts, contradicting Article 23 and the 2025 Supreme Court ruling in Attorney General v. Kabaziguruka. This undermines humane treatment and Article 9 of the ICCPR which prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention. The state’s selective releases and public commitments create an illusion of compliance, but the lack of accountability for abductions, torture, and military detentions prevents citizens from inherently enjoying freedom from arbitrary detention. Rights are granted as political gestures rather than systemic guarantees.
Second to the former, Article 28 of the 1995 Constitution provides for fair trial and presumption of innocence, it ensures a fair, speedy, and public trial before an independent court, with Article 28(3)(a) guaranteeing presumption of innocence and Article 44(c) prohibiting derogation. These align with ICCPR Article 14 and African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights Article 7. The UPDF Amendment Bill 2025 enables civilian trials in military courts, as seen in Besigye’s and human rights lawyer Eron Kiiza’s cases, lacking independence and violating Article 28(1). Kiiza’s nine-month sentence for “contempt” without legal representation breaches ICCPR Article 14(3)(d). Musana’s 60-day pretrial detention and Edward Awebwa’s six-year sentence on 10 July 2025 for insulting the president reflect disproportionate punishments and executive pressure, undermining presumption of innocence, reports indicate executive influence over judicial rulings, with delayed human rights petitions and ignored court orders, breaching Article 128 (judicial independence) and Article 26 of the African Charter which mandates states to guarantee the independence of the courts and to establish and improve national institutions that promote and protect the rights and freedoms enshrined in the charter. While bail grants and reform promise suggest compliance, the use of military courts, judicial harassment, and delays create an environment where fair trial rights are selectively applied, not inherently accessible, violating constitutional and international standards.
Article 21(1) of the 1995 Constitution, guarantees equality before the law and prohibits discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, or other grounds, with Article 44(c) ensuring non-derogation. This aligns with Article 26 of the ICCPR and Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD, 1965) Article 5. The April 2024 Constitutional Court decision nullifying some provisions of the Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2023, such as criminalizing homosexual identity, was presented as upholding Article 21, The government’s 2025 UPR submission to the UN claimed progress in gender equality and minority protections, citing programs like the Parish Development Model (PDM) to support marginalized groups. Despite partial nullification, the Anti Homosexuality Act’s upheld provisions, including life imprisonment and the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality,” fuel violence, evictions, and healthcare denials for LGBT individuals in 2025, violating Article 21(2). Human Rights Watch reported increased attacks since May 2023, breaching UDHR (1948) Article 7. The state’s failure to address systemic discrimination, such as unequal access to justice for opposition supporters, undermines equality. Partial legal reforms and public gestures mask ongoing discrimination, preventing an environment where equality thrives inherently for marginalized groups, in violation of constitutional and international law.
Article 29(1) of the 1995 Constitution protects freedom of expression, assembly, and association, including civic organization formation. These align with Articles 19, 21, and 22 of the ICCPR and Articles 9, 10, and 11 of the ACHPR. The government points to a vibrant media landscape, with over “300 radio stations and 50 TV channels”, as evidence of free expression, some opposition rallies, such as NUP’s smaller events in 2025, are allowed with strict conditions, presented as compliance with Article 29(1)(d). The Public Order Management Act (POMA), despite partial nullification in 2020 and 2023, is used to block opposition rallies. Bobi Wine’s 6 January 2025 rally was dispersed, with arrests for non-compliance, violating Article 29(1)(d) and ICCPR Article 21, he NGO (Amendment) Act 2024 imposes stringent registration requirements, and the 2024 closure of Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) was upheld by the Court of Appeal, breaching Article 29(1)(e) and Article 22 of the ICCPR. Journalists faced assaults in Bukedea on 14 June 2025, and Minister Chris Baryomunsi’s 3 May 2025 threat against “fake news” led to arrests of activists like Musana and Awebwa, violating Article 29(1)(a) and ICCPR Article 19. Allowing limited media and rallies creates a facade of compliance, but restrictive laws and security interventions prevent these freedoms from thriving inherently, treating them as state-controlled privileges.
Article 39 of the 1995 Constitution guarantees a clean and healthy environment, with Article 50(2) allowing redress for violations. This aligns with ACHPR Article 24 and the Stockholm Declaration (1972) Principle 1. The government promotes the National Environment Act 2019 and its 2025 climate change adaptation plans, claiming to protect Article 39 rights, initiatives like the 2025 National Tree Planting Campaign are highlighted as environmental commitments. However, the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) project has caused evictions, food insecurity, and environmental harm, with a September 2024 Climate Rights International report documenting UPDF intimidation near Lake Albert, the Apaa conflict, with four deaths in January 2025, and Benet evictions at Mount Elgon, with two children killed, reflect state failure to protect environmental rights, breaching Article 50 and the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD Convention, 1976) Article I. Environmental policies and campaigns project compliance, but state-backed projects and evictions create an environment hostile to Article 39, treating environmental rights as secondary to economic interests and not an inherent guarantee for the people affected.
This year 2025, Uganda showcases compliance with the 1995 Constitution through selective releases, bail grants, policy pronouncements, and public campaigns, but fails to create an environment where Articles 23, 28, 21, 29, and 39 thrive inherently. Abductions, military trials, discriminatory laws, protest suppression, and environmental violations evident in cases like Besigye’s detention, Anti Homosexuality Act enforcement, and East African Crude Oil Pipeline evictions demonstrate that rights are treated as discretionary privileges. These actions breach international obligations under the ICCPR, CAT, ACHPR, UDHR, CERD, and ENMOD Convention. To enable inherent rights, Uganda must repeal repressive laws, ensure judicial independence, and end security force impunity, aligning with the Constitution’s vision of justice and equality.
In conclusion, the 1995 Constitution of Uganda enshrines inherent rights under Articles 21, 23, 28, 29, and 39, guaranteeing equality, protection from arbitrary detention, fair trials, freedom of expression and assembly, and a clean environment. Yet, in 2025, these rights are reduced to discretionary “benevolent offerings” through state practices that prioritize political control over constitutional mandates. Arbitrary abductions, military trials, discriminatory laws like the Anti-Homosexuality Act, suppression of protests and civil society, and environmental violations linked to projects like EACOP demonstrate a systemic failure to foster an environment where rights thrive inherently. Selective bail grants, public campaigns, and partial legal reforms create a facade of compliance, but executive interference, repressive legislation, and security force impunity undermine the Constitution’s promise. To restore these inherent rights, Uganda must repeal restrictive laws, ensure judicial independence, and hold perpetrators accountable, aligning with both domestic and international human rights standards. Only through such reforms can the state move beyond offering rights as privileges and create a society where all citizens can freely and fully exercise their constitutional entitlements.
[1] The Law Definitions by Cambridge University.
The Author is the Attorney General of the 20th Nkumba University Law Society, President, Nkumba University Research Club, Papa Lawyers Fellowship
Discussion about this post