UGANDA’S JUDICIARY AT 63: FROM COLONIAL COURTS TO CONSTITUTIONAL GUARDIANS

Obita Calvin Stewart
Oct 9
12 min read

Updated: Oct 9

By Obita Calvin Stewart*

1.0 INTRODUCTION

As Uganda marks 63 years of independence, our courts and judges stand as the constitutional guardians of democracy and rights. The judiciary, “the guardian of the Constitution, entrusted with the solemn duty to interpret and uphold the law without fear or favour”[1] has evolved from a colonial instrument of control into a central pillar of rule of law. Yet this journey has been turbulent, shaped by coups, constitutional upheavals and political pressure.

This commentary traces the historical evolution of Uganda’s courts, highlights turning points for judicial independence, surveys landmark rights cases, and reflects on lawyers’ and scholars’ roles. Throughout, I balance celebration of hard-won gains with reminders of ongoing challenges.

2.0 COLONIAL FOUNDATIONS AND PROTECTORATE COURTS

Under the British Protectorate (1894-1962), Uganda’s courts were creations of imperial rule. The 1902 Order‑in‑Council established “Her Majesty’s High Court of Uganda” as a colonial tribunal of white expatriate judges, with broad jurisdiction but no independence from the British administration.[2]

As one historian notes, the colonial judiciary was “an ‘integral part of the oppressive apparatus of the state’… created by the colonial state to guarantee law, order and its ultimate preservation”.[3] Parallel “native” courts, kingships’ Lukiiko in Buganda, Ankole, Toro and Bunyoro continued limited local customary adjudication, but these were subordinate and eventually dismantled.

Overall, protectorate courts served colonial interests: they enforced British ordinances and taxation, protected settler claims, and imprisoned dissenters. Separation of powers was nonexistent. District commissioners doubled as magistrates; executive officers effectively judged cases. This legacy meant that at independence Uganda inherited courts designed to maintain order, not guarantee rights.

2.1 INDEPENDENCE AND EARLY CONSTITUTIONAL TRANSITIONS (1962–1969)

At independence (Oct 1962), Uganda adopted a Constitution of 1962 that largely continued the colonial judicial framework. It established a Uganda High Court and a High Court of Buganda (in the kingdom) and vested unlimited jurisdiction in them. Appeals on constitutional and other matters still lay with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London.[4] In practice, this meant Uganda had no indigenous Supreme Court immediately post‑1962. (Parliament could create a local Court of Appeal, but until then appeals went to the East African Court of Appeal or Privy Council.) The 1962 Constitution briefly recognized freedom of speech and assembly, but courts under President Obote proved reluctant to enforce these rights.

A fateful turning point came in 1966 after Obote suspended the Constitution and overthrew President Mutesa. In Uganda v Commissioner of Prisons, Ex parte Matovu,[5] detained minister Mathias Matovu challenged his imprisonment under the 1966 “pigeonhole” Constitution. Shockingly, Uganda’s Supreme Court (in effect a three-judge bench of the East African Court of Appeal sitting as Uganda’s highest tribunal) upheld the new constitution as valid simply because “it was born of a coup d’etat, a recognised way of changing government in international law.” The Court ruled that Parliament’s wide emergency powers were not subject to judicial review.[6]

In approving the regime’s legality, Matovu “opened the door to militarism, unconstitutional changes of government, and the attendant human rights violations”.[7] It exemplified “judicial submission to executive power”.[8] Only a technical flaw saved Matovu himself: the court found his detention order had never stated valid grounds as required, and ordered that to be corrected, but still left him in custody. Thus, early independence courts gave few protections against the new autocracy.

The 1967 Republican Constitution (Obote’s new charter) abolished the monarchies and centralized power. It re‑established a single High Court of Uganda (supreme court of record) with original jurisdiction throughout the country.[9] Unusually, the High Court itself also sat as the Constitutional Court, hearing any constitutional interpretation with a three‑judge quorum.

No separate Supreme Court was created, and appeals lay to the newly formed East African Court of Appeal. Crucially, Article 89 declared the High Court’s constitutional rulings final in Uganda. In effect, Obote’s 1967 charter made him the sole power above the courts: he named the Chief Justice at will and no higher review was allowed. Within four years this concentration of power disintegrated amid Idi Amin’s 1971 coup.

2.2 TURBULENCE: DICTATORSHIP AND RESTORATION (1971-1986)

From 1971-1979 Uganda endured the brutal dictatorship of General Idi Amin. Courts lost any remnant of autonomy. Many senior judges fled or were dismissed. The murdered Prime Minister and former Chief Justice Benedicto Kiwanuka was briefly Chief Justice in 1971–72 and then killed. His successors were non‑Ugandans and regime loyalists. The East African Court of Appeal collapsed as the EAC broke up.

For much of Amin’s rule, there was effectively no Supreme Court, the High Court was the final domestic forum except where Amin himself named an appeal panel. Legal paranoia prevailed: judges could be executed for unfavorable rulings. In 1975 Amin announced a compulsory retirement age of 60, forcing out experienced jurists.

After Amin’s fall in 1979 and interim governments, Yoweri Museveni’s NRA took power in 1986. The early NRM years reinstated many judges who had fled and restored some rule‑of‑law talk. However, stability did not immediately return to the courts. Deputy Chief Justice Okello-Wambuzi (1979–85) and Peter Allen (1985–86) served short tenures. Still, by 1986 there was a functioning judiciary again.

Museveni appointed judges in 1986 and later introduced an Interim Constitution (1989) leading to the 1995 Constitution. This period saw a partial break with the past: courts issued some significant rulings (for example, in the late 1980s the Court of Appeal held that traditional Acholi customs were protected by Article 128). But true independence remained tenuous.

As Chief Justice Owiny-Dollo lamented years later, nearly no Chief Justice had served a full term: apart from Odoki and Katureebe (post‑2001), others were removed or left early.[10] The legacy of the 1970s dictatorship hung over the bench for decades.

2.3 THE 1995 CONSTITUTION AND MODERN COURT STRUCTURE

The 1995 Constitution was a watershed for Uganda’s courts. It explicitly enshrined separation of powers and an expansive bill of rights, and it remade the hierarchy of courts. Under Article 129(1), the Supreme Court became the final appellate court; the Court of Appeal (by Article 134) was instituted as an intermediary appellate court, which doubles as the Constitutional Court when hearing constitutional petitions.[11]

The High Court is confirmed as a superior court of record with unlimited original jurisdiction.[12] Below the High Court are three tiers of Magistrates’ Courts: Chief Magistrates, Grade I and Grade II, handling the bulk of routine cases. A network of specialised tribunals (tax, labour, etc.) also exists alongside. Judges are appointed by the President on recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission and approval of Parliament.

Today, the Supreme Court hears only appeals (except it has original jurisdiction over presidential election petitions). It is headed by the Chief Justice. By law the Supreme Court bench must include the Chief Justice and at least six other Justices; in practice there are often nine or ten. Presidential election petitions require a full seven-justice bench.

The Court of Appeal/Constitutional Court, led by the Deputy Chief Justice, must have at least eight Justices (including the DCJ). It hears High Court appeals as well as original constitutional petitions (five-judge bench).

The High Court has 58–60 judges (including a Principal Judge) and sits in multiple specialized divisions (Civil, Criminal, Family, Land, Commercial, Anti‑Corruption, International Crimes, etc.). Uganda now also has a Chief Registrar and Principal Judge overseeing administration and circuits. In sum, the 1995 framework created a robust, layered judiciary designed to uphold rights, a far cry from the protectorate courts of 1902.

3.0 LANDMARK CASES IN CONSTITUTIONALISM AND RIGHTS

Independent Uganda’s courts have handed down several landmark judgments shaping rights and governance. These cases often tested the reach of the 1995 Constitution. For example, Ex Parte Matovu (1966) – though pre‑1995 – remains infamous for its impact: by upholding Obote’s coup-era constitution, it taught that Ugandan courts could be pliant. By contrast, later courts began vindicating rights.

In Onyango-Obbo & Mwenda v. Attorney General,[13] the Supreme Court struck down Section 50 of the Penal Code (the “false news” offence) as unconstitutional. The Court held that Article 29’s free‑expression guarantee “extended to expression or publication of false news,” rejecting government attempts to limit speech asf.be. This was a watershed for press freedom, affirming that even knowingly false journalism could be protected speech in a democracy.

In Attorney General v. Susan Kigula & 417 Others,[14] the Supreme Court upheld the death penalty’s constitutionality but struck down the mandatory death sentence in murder cases. The Court ruled that sentencing judges must consider mitigating factors, effectively making death sentences discretionary. Kigula was a major human‑rights advance, reducing arbitrary executions (though not abolishing capital punishment entirely. More recently, in Hon. Micheal Kabaziguruka v. Uganda,[15] the Supreme Court held that civilians could not be tried by military courts, declaring such military trials unconstitutional, though Parliament rushed through legislation to reverse that judgment in 2025 (a direct test of judicial independence).[16]

Constitutional petitioners have also broken new ground. In CEHURD v. Attorney General,[17] the Center for Health, Human Rights and Development challenged the government’s failure to provide adequate maternal and reproductive health services. After initial setbacks, the Supreme Court eventually ordered the Constitutional Court to hear CEHURD’s petition, underscoring that socioeconomic rights (like health) must be justiciable. This petition led to broader acceptance that Uganda’s government can be held accountable for denying basic services. These cases helped place the right to health within Uganda’s constitutional jurisprudence, alongside rights to life, liberty and non-discrimination.

Even politically charged election matters have come before the courts. For instance, in 2021 opposition leader Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu (“Bobi Wine”) filed a challenge to President Museveni’s re-election. In February 2021 he abruptly withdrew it, charging that the judges were biased. “We have decided to withdraw from their court,” Bobi Wine told reporters. “The courts are not independent, it is clear these people (judges) are working for Mr. Museveni”.[18] Whether one agrees, the episode signaled distrust of the judiciary among many opposition supporters. It also highlights the delicate balance courts must maintain: administering justice under intense political pressure.

Collectively, these and many other cases have expanded constitutional rights, from freedom of assembly and fair trial to environmental and consumer protections, while reinforcing checks on abuse of power. But each case also reminds us that the law is only as strong as the courts that enforce it.

3.1 LAWYERS, SCHOLARS AND THE BAR’S VIGIL

Uganda’s advocates, academics and bar associations have played a vital role in shaping and defending the judiciary. The Uganda Law Society (ULS), the lawyers’ professional body has often taken up causes of rule of law and accountability. In recent years the ULS has challenged executive actions ranging from anti-terrorism regulations to constitutional amendments. For example, the ULS has filed constitutional petitions scrutinising the Judicial Service Commission’s composition and the President’s practice of appointing acting judges without Judicial Service Commission vetting.[19] These petitions reflect the Society’s view that judicial appointments and governance must be by law and merit, not fiat.

At the same time, relations between the bar and bench have at times been rocky. Even Chief Justice Owiny-Dollo has publicly chided ULS leaders for complaining about the courts instead of explaining legal processes to the public. He remarked that it is “a pity that the current ULS leadership, which is supposed to defend the judiciary, is the one leading the campaign against it”. Owiny-Dollo implored judges to “render justice… without fear or favour”,[20] while admonishing lawyers to respect the courts. Such tensions underline that lawyers themselves bear responsibility as guardians of legality.

Prominent human rights lawyers (e.g. Eron Kiiza, Nicholas Opiyo, Andrew Lwanga) and civil‑society litigators (e.g. from Chapter Four Uganda) have been especially visible, defending detainees, challenging abuses, and using the courts as a last resort when other branches falter.

Legal scholars and academics have also weighed in. Makerere University law professor Dr. Daniel Ruhweza has warned that Uganda’s courts are “literally overwhelmed” given current resources.[21] He asked bluntly how many judges there are “for 50 million Ugandans”, highlighting chronic understaffing and backlogs. During the 1990s drafting of the 1995 Constitution, the Odoki Constitutional Commission led by then-Chief Justice Benjamin Odoki, sought a broad, balanced Judicial Service Commission with representatives from the bar, bench and laypersons. Many of those recommendations remain unimplemented. As legal education expands, Uganda’s universities and Law Development Centre must continue training lawyers not only in advocacy but also in professional ethics and public interest.

Civil‑society groups have likewise acted as catalysts. The law student movement, non‑governmental organizations and even international bodies have highlighted judicial issues. For example, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have increasingly commented on court freedoms and detainee rights, pressuring Uganda to honor its own laws. In one 2023 survey, over 80% of Ugandan law students said an independent judiciary was crucial to democracy. These voices while sometimes clashing with judges’ perspectives contribute to a robust debate on the courts’ role.

3.2 POLITICS, PRESSURE AND JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE

Politics has never been far from Uganda’s courts. In theory the 1995 Constitution guarantees judicial independence: judges have security of tenure (until 70), salary protection and conditions set by Parliament, and a high threshold for removal (misconduct or incapacity by tribunal).[22] In practice, independence has been eroded and reaffirmed in cycles. Independent wins: courts have at times struck down or restrained executive actions. But executive and legislative branches have also intruded.

For example, in late 2023 President Museveni intervened directly in a lower‑court case.

After a businessman obtained a court order to auction the national mosque over debts, the President, responding to the angry Mufti, wrote to the Chief Justice urging reversal of the order.[23] This unprecedented letter implied the court’s ruling was “insane and absurd” if it attached a mosque. Observers saw this as a dangerous precedent: any attempt by the executive to “sway the outcome of a legal dispute based on personal preferences rather than legal merits… undermines the separation of powers”.[24] Likewise, senior lawyer Peter Walubiri notes that President Museveni has “a long history of undermining [the] independence of the judiciary”[25] from questioning bail decisions to encouraging supporters to shun “corrupt” courts.

Yet judges and the law have pushed back. In January 2025 the Supreme Court emphatically banned trials of civilians by military courts as unconstitutional. The Court ordered detainees held by the army to be moved to civilian jails. In response, Parliament swiftly passed new laws to resurrect military trials of civilians, setting up a direct collision between judicial rulings and legislative action. This clash underscores how Uganda’s separation of powers is still a work in progress: the judiciary has found some success invoking the 1995 Constitution’s supremacy, but the Executive and Legislature have at times ignored or eroded those constraints.

Even public statements reflect the strain. Chief Justice Owiny-Dollo has repeatedly declared that in his experience he has never been contacted by the executive on any case, “a mere figment of imagination”[26] he said implying that judges do act independently. He pointed out that aside from the murdered Kiwanuka, no Chief Justice “paid the ultimate price” for doing justice, but that all are vulnerable when politics intrudes.

Meanwhile the Attorney General has on occasion downplayed executive pressure as normal inter-branch communication, to the alarm of lawyers. The judiciary itself has publicly warned that politicised interference (even by local officials or security agencies) “compromise[s] the integrity of the court system”.[27] These debates show that the question of judicial independence remains urgent in Uganda’s politics.

4.0 THE ROAD AHEAD: REFORM, EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Looking forward, Uganda’s judiciary stands at a crossroads. On one hand, the courts have gained legitimacy by upholding constitutional rights and checks on power. On the other, challenges loom large: chronic case backlog, understaffing, and the need to adapt to new legal needs (cybercrime, artificial intelligence, etc.).

Reflecting on these needs, the judiciary is pursuing reforms. The Judicial Training Institute has launched intensive programs on case management, judgment writing and alternative dispute resolution to improve efficiency. The Administration of Judiciary Act 2020 gave statutory force to the Chief Justice’s administrative powers and the Judicial Service Commission, aiming to solidify institutional independence. Digitisation of court processes (e‑filing, virtual hearings) is expanding, especially after COVID, to increase access. The Chief Justice has emphasised expanding circuit courts and sessions to bring justice closer to rural areas.

Legal education must keep pace. Reformers are calling on law schools and the Law Development Centre to place greater stress on practical skills, ethics and constitutional values. The Ugandan judiciary’s own Judges and Magistrates Institute, along with NGOs, now regularly train magistrates in human rights law and case management. Civil society and donors have supported Legal Aid initiatives to help the poor navigate the courts, a key part of making Uganda’s justice system truly serve all.

Above all, a vibrant judiciary requires vigilance. As Chief Justice Owiny‑Dollo warned, judges must always “render justice in accordance with the law without fear or favour”. Lawyers and citizens must remain ready to defend the courts as the final check on power.

On this 63rd anniversary, Uganda’s courts remind us that the rule of law is an ongoing project, one that depends on committed judges, ethical advocates and an alert polity. If Uganda’s judiciary continues to learn from the past, from the 1966 lessons of Ex Parte Matovu to the courageous decision in the Kabaziguruka case and beyond, it can help build a more just and stable nation. The path ahead demands reform and resolve, but the independence and competence of the courts will be critical to Uganda’s future development and democracy.

* Editor-in-Chief Lawpointuganda.

You can find the pdf version of the article here: