Category: Democracy

I HAVE PETITIONED THE JUDICIARY: WHEN SILENCE SPEAKS

Driven by public demand and an undying quest for the Rule of Law, I have placed my concerns on the constitutional record.

There comes a moment when a lawyer must decide whether to continue discussing a constitutional concern in WhatsApp groups—or put it formally on the record.

For me, that moment has come.

Following the Uganda Law Society’s call upon members of the legal profession and the public to petition the leadership of the Judiciary, I have today submitted my own petition to the leadership of the Judiciary, calling upon the Hon. Chief Justice, the Hon. Deputy Chief Justice and the Hon. Principal Judge to publicly reaffirm the constitutional independence of the Judiciary.

And, perhaps unsurprisingly, I did not arrive at this decision alone.

There has been a public demand.

There has been a never-dying quest for the Rule of Law.

And there is what those who have followed Enen Legal World will know as “the Underground”—that stubborn, sometimes noisy, sometimes silent community of supporters who have continued to read, share, challenge, encourage and occasionally ask me:

“Enen, when are you going to put this on paper?”

Well.

I have put it on paper.

From WhatsApp Gossip to the Constitutional Record

The President’s recent remarks concerning Uganda’s justice system have generated significant discussion across the country and, naturally, within the legal profession.

I have watched the debate unfold.

I have listened to the arguments.

I have read the reactions.

And I have also watched something else.

Silence.

Not the silence of ordinary citizens. Ugandans have certainly been speaking.

Not the silence of lawyers. The legal profession has been speaking too.

But the silence of the institution whose constitutional independence is at the heart of the conversation has itself become part of the conversation.

That is where my concern begins.

I do not believe that the Judiciary should answer every political statement.

I do not believe that judicial officers should descend into political contests.

And I certainly do not believe that judicial independence means immunity from criticism.

But I do believe that there are moments when constitutional reassurance is itself an act of judicial leadership.

And I believe we may be in one of those moments.

Why I Have Written

I write neither in anger nor in defiance.

I write in hope.

Hope that, in moments when the constitutional equilibrium of our Republic appears unsettled, the Judiciary—the institutional refuge of the Rule of Law—will speak with the calm confidence that constitutional independence commands.

Articles 126 and 128 of the Constitution are not decorative provisions.

They establish a constitutional architecture in which judicial power belongs to the courts and judicial independence is protected from external control or direction.

But there is something I think we sometimes forget.

Judicial independence is not a privilege enjoyed by judges.

It is a right enjoyed by citizens.

It belongs to the widow seeking justice.

The prisoner awaiting trial.

The investor enforcing a contract.

The child claiming inheritance.

The advocate standing fearlessly for an unpopular client.

The citizen challenging unlawful State action.

The independence of the Judiciary is therefore not merely the Judiciary’s shield.

It is the people’s shield.

The Image That Would Not Leave My Mind

I also wrote something personal in the petition.

I saw videos circulating online in which Dr. Kizza Besigye, in what I believe to be a defiant protest against the abrogation of his fair-trial rights, collapsed upon the cold floor of the accused person’s dock during proceedings in a treason trial against him.

That image stayed with me.

Perhaps because I am a lawyer.

Perhaps because I am a citizen.

Perhaps because sometimes an image says something that several pages of legal argument cannot.

I found myself asking what happens when the institutions established to protect constitutional rights themselves become vulnerable to external pressure.

And so I wrote:

If we do not insulate the Judiciary from executive overreach and every attempt to usurp its constitutional independence, it will not merely be one litigant who collapses. The Rule of Law itself will collapse.

And when the Rule of Law collapses like Dr. Besigye did upon that cold courtroom floor, our courts risk being transformed from temples of justice into shrines of injustice.

That is not rhetoric for rhetoric’s sake.

It is the warning at the heart of my petition.

One Silence. One Encroachment. One Exception.

I have always been fascinated by how constitutional orders deteriorate.

They do not necessarily collapse overnight.

Sometimes it begins quietly.

One silence.

One encroachment.

One exception.

One justification.

Until the extraordinary becomes ordinary.

And by the time society realises that the constitutional line has moved, everyone has become accustomed to standing on the wrong side of it.

That is why I believe constitutional institutions must sometimes speak before the danger becomes normalised.

What I Have Asked the Judiciary to Do

My petition is not a demand for confrontation.

It is a call for reassurance.

I have respectfully called upon the leadership of the Judiciary to reaffirm:

1. That judicial power belongs exclusively to courts established under the Constitution.

2. That the constitutional independence of the Judiciary remains absolute and non-negotiable.

3. That every litigant shall continue to receive justice according to law, uninfluenced by political authority, public pressure or executive preference.

4. That constitutional dialogue among the three Arms of Government must preserve the doctrine of separation of powers upon which our Republic is founded.

I do not regard such a statement as political engagement.

I regard it as constitutional leadership.

Why Publish the Petition?

Some may ask why I have published a document addressed to the Judiciary.

The answer is simple.

Because constitutional questions should not remain confined to correspondence between institutions.

The Judiciary belongs to the people.

The Constitution belongs to the people.

And the Rule of Law belongs to the people.

Therefore, I have decided that my petition should not disappear into an email inbox.

It belongs on the public record.

And yes, the Underground has been asking for it.

Those who have followed Enen Legal World know that there is a community behind this platform—a community that does not always announce itself, but which watches, reads, shares and pushes.

Sometimes the messages are simple:

“Counsel, what are we doing about this?”

Sometimes they are more direct.

“Enen, write about it.”

And sometimes the demand is simply understood.

So, to the Underground:

Here it is. A copy of the petition can be accessed here:

ELW_PETITION_ON_JUDICIAL _INDEPENDENCE_SIGNED Download

When Silence Speaks

I have submitted the petition because I believe that there are seasons when judgments speak.

There are also seasons when silence speaks.

And perhaps this is one of those seasons when the Constitution itself deserves to be heard.

I do not know what response will follow.

That is now a matter for the Judiciary.

But I know what I have done.

I have moved the conversation from WhatsApp gossip to the constitutional record.

And I have done so respectfully.

Not because I have lost faith in the Judiciary.

Precisely because I have not.

I believe the Judiciary is capable of defending its constitutional space.

I believe judicial officers understand the weight of their constitutional oath.

And I believe Uganda deserves the reassurance that the institution entrusted with administering justice remains independent, impartial and faithful to the Constitution.

So I leave the petition where it belongs:

before the leadership of the Judiciary.

And I leave the question where it belongs:

before the conscience of the Republic.

The Final Word

With the greatest respect, My Lords, this appears to be a season when the Constitution itself deserves to be heard.

I beseech you brethen, all members of the public to heed to the Uganda Law Society’s call to equally submit your petitions to info@judicature.go.ug and copy in uls@uls.or.ug

JOIN THE UNDERGROUND AND FUEL THE MOVEMENT

We have created a dedicated fans WhatsApp Channel. Don’t miss the latest updates, get early bird access to our latest blog posts and more, so much more. Click the following link to follow the Channel: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb9BQqw5a246bWVsLl3j

Independent institutional critique and advocacy for a radical overhaul of legal culture require time, deep research, and uncompromised independence. If these narratives bring value to your legal journey or challenge your perspective, please visit our HOME PAGE to see how you can support this platform directly and keep the critique fierce and relentless.

Enen Ambrose. Advocate

Member, Judiciary Affairs Committee,

Uganda Law Society

& Founder–Enen Legal World

Justice Ignited. Courage Unleashed.

www.enenlegalworld.com | enen@enenlegalworld.com

July 31, 2026
ENEN’S SECOND LETTER TO THE RADICAL NEW BAR: CHAPTER THREE

The Third Witness

The Digital Public Square: When the People Began Seeking Justice Before the Crowd

“The voice of the people is often the first signal that institutions must examine themselves.”

Beloved,

History teaches that every generation discovers its own public square.

There was once the village beneath the great tree.

There was the marketplace where elders settled disputes before assembled neighbours.

There came the newspaper.

Then the radio.

Then television.

Today, another public square has emerged.

It possesses no walls.

It knows no closing hour.

It recognises neither geography nor rank.

It is carried within the pockets of millions.

It is called social media.

Whether we welcome it or lament its influence, we cannot honestly deny its power to shape public conversations about justice.

A New Forum Without Formal Jurisdiction

The digital public square pronounces no legally binding judgments.

It issues no warrants.

It cannot imprison.

It cannot award damages.

It cannot compel witnesses to testify.

Yet it possesses something no justice institution can safely ignore.

It commands attention.

Sometimes,

it commands sympathy.

Frequently,

it commands public confidence.

And in matters of confidence,

its influence increasingly extends beyond the boundaries of the smartphone into boardrooms, courtrooms, political offices and commercial enterprises.

A Contemporary Illustration

Permit me to illustrate.

When the dispute involving the musicians Cinderella Sanyu who goes by the stage name Cindy Sanyu, the King Herself and Shamim Murerwa who goes by the stage name Omega 256 captured public attention, many observed something remarkable.

The controversy did not initially unfold through pleadings, affidavits or cross-examination.

Instead, it unfolded before the court of public opinion.

Millions watched.

Millions discussed.

Millions evaluated competing narratives.

Whatever one’s view of the merits of that dispute, one fact remains difficult to ignore.

Public pressure became an important part of the story.

The episode invites reflection.

Not because social media replaced the law.

It did not.

But because it demonstrated that, in contemporary society, many grievances now pass first through the digital public square before they ever reach formal institutions, or instead of reaching them at all.

The Search for Recognition

Justice is not merely about legal remedies.

It is also about recognition.

Many citizens long first to be heard.

To be believed.

To have their suffering acknowledged.

Sometimes the courtroom eventually provides those things.

Sometimes it cannot.

Sometimes it is too distant.

Too costly.

Too slow.

Or too procedurally constrained to satisfy the immediate human need to be seen.

The digital public square responds to that need with extraordinary speed.

Within moments, a voice may travel across an entire nation.

That speed explains part of its attraction.

It does not necessarily establish its wisdom.

But it does explain its appeal.

The Blessing and the Danger

Here we must exercise caution.

The digital public square is neither angel nor demon.

It has exposed corruption.

It has amplified voices long ignored.

It has mobilised communities in support of vulnerable persons.

It has sometimes prompted institutions to revisit decisions that deserved renewed scrutiny.

Yet it has also spread misinformation.

It has condemned without hearing.

It has rewarded outrage over evidence.

It has encouraged the rapid circulation of accusation before investigation.

For these reasons, this Letter does not celebrate social media as a substitute for the administration of justice.

Neither does it dismiss it as a passing distraction.

Rather, it recognises it as one of the many arenas in which public confidence is now formed, contested and sometimes transformed.

The Behaviour Remains the Same

Recall our first witness.

When confidence weakened, the people sought another path.

Recall our second witness.

The Judiciary itself recognised that justice may travel along more than one constitutional pathway.

Now observe our third witness.

The mechanism remains unchanged.

Only the setting has altered.

The village gathering has become a digital community.

The community meeting has become a livestream.

The neighbourhood conversation has become a national discussion.

The instinct, however, is remarkably familiar.

People continue seeking forums in which they believe their grievances will be heard.

A Humbling Lesson for the Legal Profession

This chapter does not diminish the dignity of the Advocate.

Nor does it lessen the constitutional authority of the Courts.

Instead, it presents us with a humbling question.

If citizens increasingly seek recognition in places beyond the courtroom, what does that reveal about the expectations they now carry into our institutions?

Do they seek only judgments?

Or do they also seek understanding?

Do they seek only procedure?

Or do they also seek participation?

Do they seek only legality?

Or do they also seek legitimacy?

These are uncomfortable questions.

Yet institutions mature not by avoiding uncomfortable questions, but by answering them honestly.

The Third Proposition Quietly Emerges

At this point, a pattern becomes difficult to ignore.

Citizens do not simply compare institutions by their legal authority.

They compare them by their ability to satisfy deeply human expectations.

Accessibility.

Visibility.

Responsiveness.

Fairness.

Dignity.

Timeliness.

Trust.

The institution that best embodies these qualities increasingly becomes the institution to which people first turn.

Not because the law commands it.

But because confidence invites it.

A Bridge to the Fourth Witness

Thus far we have listened to communities.

We have listened to the Judiciary.

We have listened to society.

One witness remains.

Perhaps the most unexpected of all.

It neither belongs to tradition nor to social media.

It writes no judgments of its own.

Yet every day it assists lawyers, students, judges, journalists and ordinary citizens in understanding the law.

It is neither human nor institution in the ordinary sense.

It is a technology.

Artificial Intelligence.

If the first witness teaches us where people went when institutions disappointed them, and the third teaches us where they gather today, the fourth asks an even more unsettling question:

What happens when justice itself becomes conversational?

It is to that witness that we now turn.

JOIN THE UNDERGROUND AND FUEL THE MOVEMENT

We have created a dedicated fans WhatsApp Channel. Don’t miss the latest updates, get early bird access to our latest blog posts and more, so much more. Click the following link to follow the Channel: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb9BQqw5a246bWVsLl3j

Independent institutional critique and advocacy for a radical overhaul of legal culture require time, deep research, and uncompromised independence. If these narratives bring value to your legal journey or challenge your perspective, please visit our HOME PAGE to see how you can support this platform directly and keep the critique fierce and relentless.

Enen Ambrose. Advocate

Member, Judiciary Affairs Committee,

Uganda Law Society

& Founder–Enen Legal World

Justice Ignited. Courage Unleashed.

www.enenlegalworld.com | enen@enenlegalworld.com

July 31, 2026
ENEN’S SECOND LETTER TO THE RADICAL NEW BAR: CHAPTER TWO

The Second Witness

When the Judiciary Began Listening: Alternative Justice Systems and the Recognition of Legal Pluralism

“Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets.” — Proverbs 1:20

Beloved,

Every institution reveals its deepest convictions not merely by what it declares, but by what it chooses to reform.

For reforms are confessions.

When an institution reforms itself, it quietly admits that yesterday’s methods alone are no longer sufficient for tomorrow’s challenges.

It is in this spirit that we now call our second witness.

Unlike the first witness, this witness does not come from the villages of Lango.

Neither does it come from the observations of an academic.

It comes from the Judiciary of Uganda itself.

A Quiet Admission

For many years, the public imagination regarded justice as something that happened almost exclusively inside courtrooms.

The architecture of justice appeared simple.

A dispute arose.

A lawyer was instructed.

A case was filed.

A judge decided.

Justice was done.

Or so we believed.

Yet institutions, like people, learn.

And when they learn, they sometimes change direction.

The Judiciary’s increasing embrace of Alternative Justice Systems was not merely an administrative innovation.

It was an acknowledgement that the administration of justice in Uganda has always been richer, broader and more diverse than formal litigation alone.

The Language of Recognition

Alternative Justice Systems are sometimes misunderstood.

Some imagine that they are rivals to the courts.

Others fear they diminish the rule of law.

Such fears misunderstand their true significance.

The Judiciary did not embrace Alternative Justice Systems because courts had ceased to matter.

It embraced them because justice itself cannot be reduced to one procedural pathway.

Long before the Constitution established courts of judicature, communities had developed ways of restoring relationships, resolving disputes and rebuilding fractured societies.

The modern constitutional state did not erase those traditions.

It inherited them.

The question therefore became not whether they existed.

The question became how they might coexist with constitutional guarantees of fairness, dignity and human rights.

A Profound Institutional Realisation

Permit me to state what I believe is the great significance of this development.

The Judiciary’s recognition of Alternative Justice Systems is not merely about mediation.

Nor is it simply about reducing case backlog.

Those are important objectives.

But beneath them lies something even deeper.

It is the recognition that citizens do not experience justice through institutions in identical ways.

Some disputes require authoritative judgments.

Others require reconciliation.

Some demand punishment.

Others demand restoration.

Some require legal certainty.

Others require social healing.

Justice, therefore, is not impoverished by recognising multiple pathways.

It is enriched.

The Constitutional Conversation

Some may fear that recognising Alternative Justice Systems weakens the authority of the courts.

I respectfully suggest the opposite.

An institution demonstrates confidence not by denying reality, but by engaging it.

The Judiciary did not surrender its constitutional role by acknowledging legal pluralism.

It strengthened that role.

For constitutional authority is not threatened by recognising the existence of other mechanisms.

It is strengthened when it confidently defines the principles within which those mechanisms may operate.

The Constitution remains supreme.

But supremacy need not mean exclusivity.

The Lesson Hidden Within Reform

Here, beloved, we begin to perceive a pattern.

Professor Agea observed that citizens sought justice through alternative mechanisms when confidence in formal institutions weakened.

The Judiciary, through its own reforms, acknowledged that multiple pathways to justice already formed part of Uganda’s legal landscape.

These two witnesses have never met.

One speaks through ethnography.

The other through institutional reform.

Yet they testify to the same reality.

Justice has never travelled by only one road.

The Second Proposition Begins to Take Shape

At this stage, another observation quietly emerges.

Institutions do not preserve legitimacy by pretending alternatives do not exist.

They preserve legitimacy by remaining the most trusted among them.

This is an important distinction.

Alternative Justice Systems do not necessarily diminish the Judiciary.

They remind it continually of its constitutional vocation.

To remain worthy of the confidence reposed in it by the people.

Confidence, once again, quietly enters our discussion.

Not yet as doctrine.

Only as observation.

A Gentle Warning

Every reform carries within it an unanswered question.

If citizens increasingly value accessibility…

If they increasingly value participation…

If they increasingly value restoration…

If they increasingly value speed…

Then every justice institution must continually ask itself:

What qualities are drawing people towards alternative pathways?

For reforms are not merely responses.

They are mirrors.

Sometimes they reveal not only where society is going,

but also what society believes has been missing.

A Bridge to the Third Witness

The first witness listened to rural communities.

The second witness listened to constitutional reality.

Our third witness listens to something different altogether.

Not villages. Not institutions.

But millions of citizens connected through a device small enough to fit inside the palm of a hand.

For in our own generation another forum has quietly emerged.

It issues no summons.

It possesses no judges.

It keeps no court record.

Yet powerful institutions increasingly find themselves compelled to answer there.

It is called social media.

Whether we celebrate it or lament it, we cannot honestly ignore it.

To that witness we now turn.

JOIN THE UNDERGROUND AND FUEL THE MOVEMENT

We have created a dedicated fans WhatsApp Channel. Don’t miss the latest updates, get early bird access to our latest blog posts and more, so much more. Click the following link to follow the Channel: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb9BQqw5a246bWVsLl3j

Independent institutional critique and advocacy for a radical overhaul of legal culture require time, deep research, and uncompromised independence. If these narratives bring value to your legal journey or challenge your perspective, please visit our HOME PAGE to see how you can support this platform directly and keep the critique fierce and relentless.

Enen Ambrose. Advocate

Member, Judiciary Affairs Committee,

Uganda Law Society

& Founder–Enen Legal World

Justice Ignited. Courage Unleashed.

www.enenlegalworld.com | enen@enenlegalworld.com

July 30, 2026
ENEN’S SECOND LETTER TO THE RADICAL NEW BAR: CHAPTER ONE

The First Witness

Professor Jacob Godfrey Agea
Appearing through his study, “From Belief to Institution: The Embedded Functions of Witchcraft in Traditional Lango Society, Northern Uganda,” published in the East African Journal of Traditions, Culture and Religion, Vol. 9, No. 1 (2026)

“In the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter shall be established.” — 2 Corinthians 13:1

Beloved,

Every generation is tempted to mistake its assumptions for reality.

Those who dwell within courtrooms often imagine that justice begins where the courthouse gates open and ends where the judge pronounces judgment.

Those who practise law sometimes imagine that every citizen instinctively regards the courts as the first and natural refuge for every grievance.

Yet wisdom demands that before we speak about justice, we must first ask the people how they themselves seek it.

For institutions exist to serve society.

Society does not exist to vindicate institutions.

It is for this reason that I begin, not with my own observations, but with those of another.

Before this Letter speaks, let Professor Jacob Godfrey Agea speak.

Listening Before Speaking

Professor Agea undertook an ethnographic study among communities in the Lango Sub-region.

He did not begin by asking whether witchcraft was true or false.

He did not begin by condemning indigenous beliefs.

Nor did he begin by defending them.

He asked a simpler and perhaps more profound question:

How do ordinary people respond when they experience injustice?

That question is more important than it first appears.

For it shifts our attention away from legal doctrine and towards human behaviour.

The question before us is no longer merely what the law provides.

It is what people actually do.

What the People Revealed

The voices Professor Agea recorded are not the voices of constitutional lawyers.

Neither are they the voices of judges or professors.

They are farmers.

Elders.

Mothers.

Local leaders.

Ordinary Ugandans navigating disputes over land, livestock, family, elections and community life.

Across these narratives, a common pattern emerges.

When people perceive that formal institutions cannot protect them, cannot resolve their disputes effectively, or cannot command their confidence, they begin looking elsewhere.

Some seek traditional authorities.

Some seek spiritual intervention.

Some seek indigenous mechanisms of accountability.

Others seek forms of communal sanction beyond the reach of formal legal institutions.

The details differ.

The mechanism does not.

The Behaviour Matters More Than the Belief

This Letter is not concerned with evaluating the truth or falsity of any particular spiritual belief.

That question belongs elsewhere.

Our concern is different.

Our concern is behavioural.

The critical observation arising from Professor Agea’s work is that people do not cease seeking justice merely because confidence in one institution declines.

They continue seeking justice.

They simply seek it somewhere else.

That observation deserves careful reflection.

For it reveals something fundamental about human nature.

The demand for justice does not disappear.

Only the destination changes.

A Jurisprudential Observation

Permit me, then, to offer the first observation arising from Professor Agea’s work.

When confidence in a justice institution weakens, citizens rarely abandon the pursuit of justice itself.

Instead, they migrate towards another institution that they perceive to be more capable of delivering certainty, accountability, protection or resolution.

This migration may be wise.

It may be misguided.

It may sometimes protect rights.

It may sometimes expose citizens to new risks.

Those normative questions must be examined separately.

At this stage, we merely observe the phenomenon.

The people continue searching.

The institution changes.

The First Proposition Begins to Emerge

Here, then, we encounter the first crack in an assumption long held within the legal profession.

For generations, many of us have spoken as though the courts enjoyed a natural monopoly over justice.

Professor Agea’s observations suggest otherwise.

His work does not deny the constitutional authority of the courts.

Nor does it diminish the importance of the rule of law.

Instead, it quietly reveals a social reality that constitutional texts alone cannot fully explain:

Citizens possess agency.

When confidence diminishes, they choose differently.

That choice may lead them towards traditional mechanisms.

Towards religious authority.

Towards community elders.

Towards public campaigns.

Towards digital platforms.

Or towards innovations that have not yet fully emerged.

The destination is secondary.

The movement is primary.

The Lesson for the Justice Sector

If Professor Agea’s observations are accepted, then every justice institution should pause before asking:

“How do we preserve our authority?”

A more urgent question presents itself.

How do we preserve the confidence that gives our authority practical meaning in the lives of those we serve?

Authority may be conferred by law.

Confidence cannot.

Confidence must be earned.

Maintained.

And, when lost,

patiently rebuilt.

A Bridge to the Next Witness

Professor Agea has shown us that institutional migration is not a speculative fear.

It is an observable social phenomenon.

The question that now confronts us is whether this pattern is confined to indigenous communities, or whether it has begun to manifest itself elsewhere, under different names and through different technologies.

To answer that question, we must call our second witness.

Not from the villages of Lango.

But from the constitutional architecture of the Republic itself.

For even as communities quietly sought justice through indigenous mechanisms, the Judiciary of Uganda was itself beginning to recognise that the administration of justice could no longer be understood through the courtroom alone.

It is to that witness that we now turn.

JOIN THE UNDERGROUND AND FUEL THE MOVEMENT

We have created a dedicated fans WhatsApp Channel. Don’t miss the latest updates, get early bird access to our latest blog posts and more, so much more. Click the following link to follow the Channel: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb9BQqw5a246bWVsLl3j

Independent institutional critique and advocacy for a radical overhaul of legal culture require time, deep research, and uncompromised independence. If these narratives bring value to your legal journey or challenge your perspective, please visit our HOME PAGE to see how you can support this platform directly and keep the critique fierce and relentless.

Enen Ambrose. Advocate

Member, Judiciary Affairs Committee,

Uganda Law Society

& Founder–Enen Legal World

Justice Ignited. Courage Unleashed.

www.enenlegalworld.com | enen@enenlegalworld.com

July 29, 2026
ENEN’S SECOND LETTER TO THE RADICAL NEW BAR: Epistolary Greetings

Justice Is a Competitive Market

An Epistle to the Radical New Bar, the Bench, the Bar, the Justice Sector and the People of Uganda.

“The people do not owe the justice sector their confidence. The justice sector must earn it anew every day.”

Grace, Mercy and Peace

Grace, mercy and peace be unto you from God our Father and from our Lord Jesus Christ, who is Himself the Author of Justice, the Defender of the Oppressed, the Refuge of the Persecuted, the Hope of the Afflicted, and the righteous Judge before whose throne every earthly institution shall one day give an account.

May His wisdom govern our minds.

May His courage strengthen our hearts.

May His mercy temper our judgments.

May His truth continually remind us that no office, however exalted, no court, however dignified, and no constitution, however beautifully written, possesses an authority greater than justice itself.

The Communion of Those Who Labour for Justice

Before I write concerning institutions,

permit me first to remember people.

For justice has never been administered by buildings.

Neither has it been preserved by statutes alone.

Justice has always travelled through ordinary men and women who, in every generation, quietly choose courage over comfort, conscience over convenience, and duty over applause.

To such men and women this Letter is dedicated.

To RNB Commander 00001

Grace be unto you, RNB Commander 00001, Isaac K. Ssemakadde, President of the Uganda Law Society, wherever Divine Providence has seen fit to preserve you during these uncertain days.

Isaac K Ssemakadde SC: Exiled President of Uganda Law Society

I pray for your health.

I pray for your safety.

I pray for your family.

I pray for your eventual return in peace.

May the Lord prosper every endeavour that honestly seeks the renewal of our profession.

May He strengthen your hands as you continue calling the legal fraternity to the great work of Digital Transformation, Democratisation, Demilitarisation and Decolonisation.

And may history judge every reform not by the comfort it afforded its authors, but by the justice it secured for the people.

To Those Who Continue to Pay the Debt of Courage

Permit me also to greet those whose names remind us that institutions are ultimately carried upon human shoulders.

To Her Worship Atim Sheilah Gloria, and to every judicial officer who has quietly discovered that fidelity to conscience sometimes carries a personal cost, may the Lord grant courage, wisdom and peace.

Inset: Her Worship Atim Shiela Gloria. Infographics for Marching Order No. 6 of the ULS National Lawyers Strike, celebrating her for remaining form and truthful to her independence and the Judicial Oath. It is widely believed that she was transfered to a remote Court because she granted bail to the Hon. Miria Matembe.

To Hon. Mariam Wangadya, the now resigned former Chairperson of the Uganda Human Rights Commission and to every public servant who has wrestled with the demands of conscience in the discharge of constitutional duty, may the God of truth preserve your integrity and reward every sacrifice made in the service of justice.

The Hon Mariam Fauzat Wangadya: Chairperson emeritus of the Uganda Human Rights Commission. Circumstances leading to her resignation undoubtedly point to her resignation on a matter of principle- For recognising that her independence was compromised, leaving victims appearing before the Human Rights Commission without an effective remedy.

To every Advocate who has endured criticism, imprisonment, intimidation, professional loss or public misunderstanding because they remained faithful to their oath, may your strength be renewed.

History often remembers such moments only after they have passed.

God remembers them while they are being lived.

To Those Who Bear Heavy Burdens

We remember all who presently carry burdens in the pursuit of justice.

We remember Advocates defending unpopular clients.

Judicial officers deciding difficult cases.

Families waiting for justice.

Citizens deprived of liberty.

Victims awaiting accountability.

Public servants striving to discharge their duties with integrity.

And every unknown Ugandan whose quiet courage shall never appear in a law report, yet whose faithfulness strengthens the Republic more than they themselves may ever realise.

May the Lord sustain you all.

To Those Who Have Gone Before Us

We pause to remember our departed colleagues.

Advocates.

Judicial officers.

Court staff.

Legal scholars.

Public servants.

Citizens who loved justice.

Though their voices are now silent,

their labour continues to speak.

May Almighty God grant unto them eternal rest.

May He comfort the families they have left behind.

And may He raise another generation willing to continue the work that they faithfully began.

To the Court Users of the Republic of Uganda

Finally,

and above all,

I greet you.

The people of Uganda.

The widow seeking justice.

The orphan seeking protection.

The prisoner awaiting trial.

The accused person longing to be heard.

The victim longing to be believed.

The worker.

The employer.

The tenant.

The landlord.

The refugee.

The entrepreneur.

The child.

The elder.

The taxpayer.

The forgotten.

Every citizen who has ever walked through the gates of a court carrying nothing but hope.

It is from you that every justice institution ultimately derives both its purpose and its legitimacy.

Without your confidence,

our robes become garments.

Our courtrooms become buildings.

Our statutes become paper.

Our offices become titles.

And our learning becomes an exercise in vanity.

We therefore acknowledge your frustrations.

We recognise your disappointments.

We hear your growing questions.

This Letter is written because those questions deserve honest answers.

An Author’s Reflection

Beloved,

Some may wonder why I have begun this Letter with prayers rather than propositions.

The answer is simple.

Justice is never administered by institutions alone.

It is administered by people.

By advocates whose consciences are tested.

By judicial officers whose independence is questioned.

By public servants who must daily choose between convenience and conviction.

By citizens who continue believing in justice even when justice appears to have forgotten them.

If we forget the people,

we shall soon misunderstand the institutions they created.

For institutions exist because people first entrusted them with their liberty, their property, their dignity and their hope.

It is therefore fitting that we remember the people before we examine the institutions.

A Word on the Journey Ahead

The reflections that follow are neither offered as mere opinion nor as political rhetoric.

They arise from a growing body of observation, reflection and conversation about how people seek justice in Uganda today.

Some of those observations emerge from scholarly research.

Others from the lived experiences of our courts, our communities and our profession.

Still others from the unmistakable transformations brought about by technology, Alternative Justice Systems and the changing expectations of the public.

Together, they invite us to confront a question that I believe our generation can no longer postpone.

The Question Before Our Generation

Every generation inherits one question that eventually defines it.

Some generations asked whether kings should govern.

Others asked whether constitutions should restrain power.

Others asked whether liberty belongs equally to all people.

I believe our generation has inherited another.

What becomes of the justice sector when the people begin seeking justice elsewhere?

This Letter is an attempt to answer that question.

JOIN THE UNDERGROUND AND FUEL THE MOVEMENT

We have created a dedicated fans WhatsApp Channel. Don’t miss the latest updates, get early bird access to our latest blog posts and more, so much more. Click the following link to follow the Channel: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb9BQqw5a246bWVsLl3j

Independent institutional critique and advocacy for a radical overhaul of legal culture require time, deep research, and uncompromised independence. If these narratives bring value to your legal journey or challenge your perspective, please visit our HOME PAGE to see how you can support this platform directly and keep the critique fierce and relentless.

Enen Ambrose. Advocate

Member, Judiciary Affairs Committee,

Uganda Law Society

& Founder–Enen Legal World

Justice Ignited. Courage Unleashed.

www.enenlegalworld.com | enen@enenlegalworld.com

July 28, 2026
INTERNATIONAL BAR BODIES PETITION UNITED NATIONS OVER TREATMENT OF LAWYERS IN UGANDA
Madrid Bar Association and World Jurist Association seek urgent UN intervention over alleged interference with Besigye defence team.

Two international legal organisations have formally petitioned the United Nations, urging urgent intervention over what they describe as a sustained pattern of state interference targeting lawyers representing Dr. Kizza Besigye and Hajji Obeid Lutale in ongoing treason-related proceedings before Ugandan courts.

The communication was jointly submitted by the Human Rights Section of the Madrid Bar Association (Ilustre Colegio de la Abogacía de Madrid – ICAM) and the Human Rights Institute of the World Jurist Association (WJA). It is addressed to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers and the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention through the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).

The Lawyers’ Complaint

According to the petition, the international organisations argue that the reported arrest, detention, prosecution and alleged ill-treatment of Kampala Lord Mayor and senior advocate Erias Lukwago, together with earlier incidents affecting other members of the defence team, form part of what they characterise as an escalating pattern of interference with the independence of the legal profession in Uganda.

The communication states that the pattern cannot be understood by looking at Mr. Lukwago’s case in isolation. Instead, it points to a sequence of events involving retired Major Ronald Iduuli, advocate Eron Kiiza, Kenyan Senior Counsel Martha Karua, and the subsequent attempt to provide state-selected lawyers after members of the original defence team became unavailable.

Martha Karua’s Deportation

The petition also highlights the events of 22 June 2026, when Kenyan Senior Counsel Martha Karua travelled to Uganda to participate in the defence but was denied entry at Entebbe International Airport and returned to Kenya. The communication argues that her exclusion raises questions concerning the right of accused persons to legal representation by counsel of their own choosing and references the East African Court of Justice’s earlier decision in Samuel Mukira Mohochi v Attorney General of Uganda.

State-Appointed Counsel

A significant portion of the communication focuses on the issue of legal representation after the arrest of Mr. Lukwago and the exclusion of Ms. Karua.

According to the petition, the accused declined representation from lawyers proposed through state channels, maintaining that the absence of their preferred advocates resulted from actions taken against those advocates themselves. The communication argues that compelling acceptance of substitute counsel would undermine the constitutional right to legal representation by a lawyer of one’s own choice.

Read also: LET MY LAWYERS GO!, the National Legal Education Center Bill and the Independence Journey of Uganda’s Legal Profession.

You can access the petition here:

Urgent Appeal Concerning State Interference with the Defence Team Representing Dr. Kizza Besigye and Hajji Obeid Lutale, and the Persecution of Ugandan Lawyer Erias Lukwago Download

International Legal Standards

The communication grounds its arguments in both domestic and international law.

Among the authorities cited are:
- Article 28(3)(d) of the Constitution of Uganda.
- Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
- Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
- Principles 16 and 18 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers.
According to the petition, these instruments require that lawyers be able to perform their professional functions without intimidation, harassment or improper interference.

What the Petition Seeks

The Madrid Bar Association and the World Jurist Association request the United Nations to:
- transmit an urgent appeal to the Government of Uganda;
- seek clarification regarding Martha Karua’s exclusion from Uganda;
- request an independent investigation into the arrest of Ronald Iduuli;
- urge the Government not to impose state-selected counsel on accused persons who have rejected such representation;
- call upon Uganda to guarantee the independence of lawyers in accordance with domestic and international legal obligations; and
- monitor proceedings before the High Court of Uganda, including the hearing scheduled for 29 July 2026.
A Wider Debate

The petition comes amid continuing discussion about the independence of the legal profession in Uganda and the ability of advocates to represent clients in politically sensitive proceedings without fear of intimidation or interference.

Whether the United Nations Special Rapporteur or the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention will take action in response to the communication remains to be seen.

Enen Legal World will continue monitoring developments relating to this matter and provide further News Bytes and legal analysis as events unfold.

JOIN THE UNDERGROUND AND FUEL THE MOVEMENT

We have created a dedicated fans WhatsApp Channel. Don’t miss the latest updates, get early bird access to our latest blog posts and more, so much more. Click the following link to follow the Channel: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb9BQqw5a246bWVsLl3j

Independent institutional critique and advocacy for a radical overhaul of legal culture require time, deep research, and uncompromised independence. If these narratives bring value to your legal journey or challenge your perspective, please visit our HOME PAGE to see how you can support this platform directly and keep the critique fierce and relentless.

Enen Ambrose. Advocate

Member, Judiciary Affairs Committee,

Uganda Law Society

& Founder–Enen Legal World

enen@enenlegalworld.com
July 22, 2026
ULS Raises Alarm Over “Opaque E-Justice” in Besigye Case Directions

The Uganda Law Society (ULS) has raised concerns over what it describes as a growing shift towards “opaque e-justice,” warning that recent electronic case management directions issued in the high-profile Besigye case risk undermining constitutional guarantees of fair hearing, open justice and equality of arms.

In a press statement released on Tuesday, the Society criticized the case management directions issued on 17 July 2026 by Justice Simon Peter M. Kinobe in High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 0248 of 2026, involving Dr Kizza Besigye and Hajji Obeid Lutale against Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba and the Attorney General.

A copy of the Press Statement can be accessed here:

ULS Raises Alarm – Besigye’s Case Exposes Judiciary’s Drift into Opaque E-Justice Download

According to the ULS, the directions impose stringent electronic filing deadlines under the Judiciary’s Electronic Court Case Management Information System (ECCMIS) while failing to account for litigants who may lack reliable access to computers, internet connectivity, legal representation or other basic resources required to participate effectively in digital proceedings.

The Society argues that such requirements disproportionately disadvantage vulnerable litigants, particularly incarcerated applicants, and risk transforming technology from a tool that expands access to justice into one that restricts it.

The statement further links the concerns to the Society’s earlier advisory issued on 4 June 2026 in response to the Chief Justice’s Administrative Circular No. 1 of 2026. In that advisory, the ULS questioned whether the Judiciary’s digital transformation framework sufficiently safeguards constitutional principles of transparency, public accountability and open justice.

According to the Society, the latest case management directions reinforce those concerns by emphasizing administrative efficiency without corresponding safeguards for public and media access to court proceedings and records.

Read also: A Paperless Judiciary: Why Aren’t We Ready?

The ULS also questioned the practicality of requiring incarcerated applicants to comply with tight electronic timelines while the respondents—senior government officials represented by the State—enjoy significantly greater institutional resources.

The Society maintains that this imbalance threatens the constitutional principle of equality of arms and may compromise the right to a fair hearing guaranteed under Article 28 of the Constitution.

Beyond timelines, the statement criticizes the absence of mandatory pre-hearing scheduling conferences in complex constitutional litigation and warns that the Judiciary has yet to establish adequate contingency protocols for power outages, internet disruptions and system failures that could affect electronic proceedings.

The Uganda Law Society called upon the trial judge to review the directions and adopt realistic procedural timelines that ensure meaningful participation by all parties.

It also renewed its call for the rescission of the Chief Justice’s Administrative Circular No. 1 of 2026 and urged the Judiciary to develop a revised digital justice framework that expressly subordinates electronic court administration to constitutional guarantees of openness, fairness and equal access to justice.

The statement concludes with a warning that digital innovation must remain a servant of justice rather than its master.

“Justice that cannot be seen or accessed by the people is no justice at all,” the Society said.

JOIN THE UNDERGROUND AND FUEL THE MOVEMENT

We have created a dedicated fans WhatsApp Channel. Don’t miss the latest updates, get early bird access to our latest blog posts and more, so much more. Click the following link to follow the Channel: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb9BQqw5a246bWVsLl3j

Independent institutional critique and advocacy for a radical overhaul of legal culture require time, deep research, and uncompromised independence. If these narratives bring value to your legal journey or challenge your perspective, please visit our HOME PAGE to see how you can support this platform directly and keep the critique fierce and relentless.

Enen Ambrose. Advocate

Member, Judiciary Affairs Committee,

Uganda Law Society

& Founder–Enen Legal World

enen@enenlegalworld.com

July 21, 2026
ENEN’S SECOND LETTER TO THE RADICAL NEW BAR:FOREWORD

FOREWORD

The pages that follow are written in an unusual form. They are neither a judicial opinion, nor an academic journal article, nor a political manifesto in the ordinary sense. They are an epistle, an open letter addressed to the Radical New Bar, the Bench, the Bar, the wider Justice Sector, and ultimately to the people of Uganda. The choice of this form is deliberate.

Throughout history, letters have served as instruments of reflection, correction, encouragement and reform. They have challenged institutions, comforted communities, and invited generations to re-examine the principles upon which they stand. This Letter is offered in that same spirit. Its central concern is neither the defence nor the condemnation of any single institution. Rather, it asks a broader question:

How should justice institutions sustain the confidence of the people in an age of profound technological, social and constitutional change?

The arguments that follow draw upon legal philosophy, constitutional thought, developments in Uganda’s justice sector, scholarship on Alternative Justice Systems, and contemporary public experience. They seek neither to diminish the constitutional role of the courts nor to glorify their competitors. Instead, they invite all who labour for justice to reflect upon a proposition that lies at the heart of this Letter:

Justice is a competitive market in which institutions continually earn, or lose the confidence of the people they exist to serve.

Whether the reader ultimately agrees with this proposition is less important than engaging seriously with the questions it raises.

This Letter is therefore offered, not as the final word on the future of justice, but as a contribution to an ongoing national conversation about legal culture, institutional legitimacy, and the enduring pursuit of justice.

The reader is now invited to proceed.

JOIN THE UNDERGROUND AND FUEL THE MOVEMENT

We have created a dedicated fans WhatsApp Channel. Don’t miss the latest updates, get early bird access to our latest blog posts and more, so much more. Click the following link to follow the Channel: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb9BQqw5a246bWVsLl3j

Independent institutional critique and advocacy for a radical overhaul of legal culture require time, deep research, and uncompromised independence. If these narratives bring value to your legal journey or challenge your perspective, please visit our HOME PAGE to see how you can support this platform directly and keep the critique fierce and relentless.

Enen Ambrose. Advocate

Member, Judiciary Affairs Committee,

Uganda Law Society

& Founder–Enen Legal World

Justice Ignited. Courage Unleashed.

www.enenlegalworld.com | enen@enenlegalworld.com

July 20, 2026
A Paperless Judiciary: Why Aren’t We Ready?
A speech I presentd at the 18^thRNB Live on 4th June, 2026 at ULS House, Kampala

Paperless Judiciary: Why Aren’t We Ready?

A speech presented by Enen Ambrose, blogger at www.enenlegalworld.com at the 18^thRNB Live on 4th June, 2026 at ULS House, Kampala

The President of the Uganda Law Society, Isaac K. Ssemakadde SC, the Most Perpendicular Vice President, Anthony Asiimwe, my Northern Uganda Representative to the ULS Governing Council, Egaru Emmanuel Omiat, who I believe is following this discussion online,the General Secretary Salim Babu, together with fellow members of the ULS RNB Governing Council — whom I prefer to call the ULS RNB High Command — the highly distinguished members of the medical fraternity present with us today, colleagues, fellow officers of the court, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens both here in the hall and watching us online:

I was invited to speak in my capacity as a blogger at www.enenlegalworld.com on the theme: A Fully Paperless Judiciary — Why Aren’t We Ready?

I stand before you today with deep humility and sincere concern. As a technology enthusiast who believes that technology must facilitate access to justice rather than impede it, I have witnessed firsthand the challenges that arise when we rush into a fully paperless system without adequately preparing the people it is meant to serve.

What I have observed is not mere technical inconvenience. It is something far more serious — a subtle but damaging form of harm which I prefer to call “the quiet violence of procedure” being done to the very people we are sworn to serve.

Part I: The Quiet Crisis

This is not the violence of guns or angry mobs. It is the quiet, daily violence of a system that pretends everything is working when it clearly isn’t.

Just three days ago, on 1st June 2026, the Judiciary’s deadline for crossing into full paperless operations came and went. Yet the Judiciary’s ICT Director confirmed that the system will only be rolled out to 49 courts — just 20% of the total.

Imagine a magistrate who cannot access a bail application because the network has failed. The system coldly declares “the file is not before court.” Yet the accused — whether a poor market vendor, a struggling farmer, or a respected professional — stands right there in the dock.

When this recently happened to an advocate, that person was remanded to Luzira Prison.

We have always been told that justice delayed is justice denied. But what do we call justice that has simply disappeared from the screen?

We are rushing into a paperless judiciary while many citizens, and even many lawyers, still cannot navigate it. If a poor person cannot understand their case without a single sheet of paper, have we really advanced, or have we simply replaced one barrier with a more expensive, more frustrating one?

Part II: The Evidence on the Ground

My concerns are not theoretical. A recent survey by the PM Digital Law Hub revealed worrying numbers:

– 87% of judicial officers and advocates have experienced frequent system disruptions.

– 78% say technical support is unreliable.

– 67% were not confident we would be ready for the June 1st deadline.

– 59% have received no formal training at all.

Let me give you a picture of what these numbers mean. My firm once sent a bright, confident legal assistant to the Gulu branch of the Uganda Registration Services Bureau. His task was to certify company records we needed as evidence in court. He knew the registry. He knew the clerk. He was polished and fully prepared.

But when he arrived, the physical counter was still there — yet the records had already moved online. The staff of URSB turned him back empty-handed. That day, we had no choice but to force ourselves to adapt to the new technology.

That, colleagues, is exactly where many of us are today with ECCMIS. We are still walking the old path, trusting the old counters, while the world has moved on.

Let me tell you another story — one that has not happened yet, but will happen if we are not careful. I want you to meet a lawyer. She is experienced. She has practised for fifteen years. One afternoon, she receives an urgent call. A client is about to be evicted. A temporary injunction must be filed before 5:00 p.m. She knows the High Court Registry well. She has done this a hundred times. But when she arrives, the counters are gone. The clerks point to a sign: “All filings electronic. Use ECCMIS. No paper accepted.” She does not have her laptop. The courthouse Wi‑Fi is down. Her phone battery is low. She tries to log in — she has forgotten her password. She calls her clerk. No answer. The clock shows 4:47 p.m. Her client will be evicted tomorrow. And there is nothing she can do. Colleagues, come July 2026, if the paperless mandate is fully enforced without the changes we are demanding, this will happen. I guarantee it. Our lady lawyer will stand in that registry, fully unarmed and disempowered. In that moment, like our legal assistant at URSB, she will learn the hard way: how she was trained for the profession is no longer relevant. She must upgrade her digital skills — or risk being rendered irrelevant.

In 2026, we still have judicial officers reaching for the Civil Procedure Rules of 1929 to determine the validity of a summons delivered through a WhatsApp message, while the entire body of laws enacted to facilitate the digital transformation of the Judiciary gathers dust.

Without a clear Practice Direction from the Chief Justice, and without digital competence forming part of performance evaluation, even this limited rollout to only 49 courts risks a spectacular failure.

Part III: The Human Cost

The Nocturnal Lawyer

Our advocates are now working at 2:00 a.m. not because they are dedicated, but because the system is too slow and congested during the day. We have, in effect, outsourced government server problems to the sleep and mental health of lawyers.

This is not digital transformation. It is like constructing a magnificent house without laying a proper foundation — impressive on the surface, but unsustainable and harmful to those who must live in it.

A new digital underclass

As Advocate Madira Jimmy from Arua warned me, many lawyers in the North risk being reduced to “local assistants” for Kampala-based lawyers who have better internet and support.

The same law degree, the same oath, but a completely different playing field. This is creating a dangerous hierarchy inside our own profession.

The Vanishing File

Under the old physical system, a file could be traced. Today, an urgent application can simply “disappear” in the ECCMIS system.

A judicial officer who does not wish to attend to a matter no longer needs to hide a physical file. They can simply say, “The system shows nothing.” And who can argue with a screen they cannot see?

We recently experienced this when the Uganda Law Society filed an urgent Human Rights Application concerning the Ggaba trial. That application was effectively not attended to.

In my humble view, this incident points not only to a potential case of misconduct against the concerned judicial officers, but more importantly, to a deeper and disturbing lack of accountability in our digital justice system.

If this can be done to the Uganda Law Society itself, one wonders: who else is suffering the same fate — ordinary citizens who have no voice and no remedy at all?

Part IV: What We Must Do

I am not here to condemn the Bar or the Bench, nor am I here as a doomsayer. My critique is directed across the board — at all of us who have a role to play in the successful adoption of digital transformation in the administration of justice.
1. Mandate Offline Functionality — Every court computer must be able to pre-cache daily files and work when the network fails. Our banking, email apps, file backup systems like Google Drive already do this.
1. Mandatory Training — No more “learning on the job.” Every judicial officer, clerk, and advocate must undergo verifiable digital training.
1. Recognise Modern Communication — Issue a Practice Direction accepting service via WhatsApp and SMS to verified numbers. The court can always set aside service where injustice is shown.
1. True Hybrid System — Do not treat paper as the enemy. A genuine hybrid approach beyond the current 20% rollout is wisdom, not weakness.
1. Citizen-Centred Design — The system must work for the widow in Amudat who has never opened a PDF.
1. Cultivate a Transformed Legal Culture — Digital transformation without a corresponding culture of accountability and citizen-centred justice is merely digitising the old bad manners. We must deliberately build a new legal culture where technology serves justice rather than concealing injustice.
2. Embrace Technology at Individual and Institutional Level — We must consciously cultivate a new culture of embracing technology at both personal and institutional levels. A lawyer who boasts that they never read their emails or deliberately switches off their WhatsApp blue ticks is no different from a judicial officer who conveniently claims “the system shows nothing.” True digital transformation demands personal responsibility from all of us.
Part V: A Call to Action

To my fellow advocates: We must continue having honest and regular conversations about digital transformation and the development of a new digital legal culture. Our shared goal is to ensure that technology truly enhances access to justice for all. Let us speak up constructively, with one voice, for the good of our clients and the future of our profession.

To judicial officers: My clarion call to you today is this — many of you are working under very difficult conditions. Let us join hands and fight together for better tools, better infrastructure, and better support.

As the ancient proverb teaches us — and I have merely adapted it here — “the roots of accountability are bitter, but the fruits are sweet.” (A variation of Aristotle’s famous saying on education). Let us therefore courageously cultivate, at both personal and institutional levels, a new legal culture of accountability and genuine digital transformation.

To the people of Uganda: Walk with us. The widow in Amudat — who has never opened a PDF — the accused in Luzira, whose bail application vanished from a screen, and the nocturnal lawyer, awake at 2am fighting a congested server — they need us to get this right.

The spirit is willing. Let us now strengthen the flesh of this system.

Thank you.

I remain Enen Ambrose of Enen Legal World, a legal literacy blog which you can find at www.enenlegalworld.com and I say this for God and My Country.

ENEN AMBROSE

www.enenlegalworld.com

A copy of the speech can be found here:

20260604_A_PAPERLESS_JUDICIARY_WHY_AREN’T_WE_READY_A_SPEECH_BY_ENEN_AMBROSE_SIGNED Download

JOIN THE UNDERGROUND AND FUEL THE MOVEMENT

We have created a dedicated fans WhatsApp Channel. Don’t miss the latest updates, get early bird access to our latest blog posts and more, so much more. Click the following link to follow the Channel: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb9BQqw5a246bWVsLl3j

Independent institutional critique and advocacy for a radical overhaul of legal culture require time, deep research, and uncompromised independence. If these narratives bring value to your legal journey or challenge your perspective, please visit our HOME PAGE to see how you can support this platform directly and keep the critique fierce and relentless.

Enen Ambrose. Advocate

Member, Judiciary Affairs Committee,

Uganda Law Society

& Founder–Enen Legal World
June 4, 2026
FROM BROWN TO PLESSY: WHY FARUKU MAY BECOME THE MOST CONSEQUENTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL REGRESSION OF THE LAST TWO DECADES

Constitutionalism, Deterrence and the Price of Violating Non-Derogable Rights

Constitutional courts shape legal culture. Some decisions expand the reach of rights. Others contract it. Some become monuments to constitutional progress. Others become warnings from history.

The Constitutional Court’s decision in Faruku Muhamed & Others v Attorney General belongs to the latter category.

Indeed, it may come to be remembered as one of the most consequential constitutional regressions since the promulgation of the 1995 Constitution.

The judgment has already generated intense debate. Supporters praise it as a restoration of balance between the rights of accused persons and society’s legitimate interest in the prosecution of crime. Critics view it as a retreat from the robust protection of non-derogable rights that Ugandan courts painstakingly developed over the last two decades.

I count myself among the latter.

Not because I underestimate the importance of criminal accountability.

Not because I believe every constitutional violation should automatically free every accused person.

But because I believe the Court has fundamentally misunderstood the constitutional function of consequences.

At its heart, Faruku is not a case about criminals.

It is a case about incentives.

It is a case about deterrence.

It is a case about the price the State must pay when it violates the Constitution.

And once one understands that, the implications become profoundly unsettling.

THE FORGOTTEN PURPOSE OF SECTION 11(2)

Much of the commentary surrounding Section 11(2) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act proceeds from a mistaken premise.

The provision was never principally about rewarding accused persons.

It was never principally about frustrating criminal trials.

Nor was it intended to create technical escape routes for the guilty.

Its purpose was institutional.

Its purpose was preventative.

Its purpose was deterrent.

Every legal system creates incentives.

A police officer deciding how to obtain evidence responds to incentives.

An investigator deciding whether to respect constitutional safeguards responds to incentives.

A security agency deciding whether compliance is worth the inconvenience responds to incentives.

The genius of Section 11(2) was that it altered those incentives.

It communicated a simple message:

If you violate non-derogable rights, you may lose the prosecution altogether.

That message did not exist to protect criminals.

It existed to discipline power.

It existed to ensure that constitutional compliance became the cheapest option available to the State.

The Court has now substantially weakened that discipline.

THE DOCTRINAL ERROR: WHEN A DETERRENT BECOMES A SUGGESTION

The central problem with Faruku is doctrinal before it is political.

Section 11(2) was not merely a remedy available to an accused person after a violation had occurred.

It was a prophylactic rule.

A constitutional deterrent.

A bright-line consequence designed to influence institutional behaviour before violations occurred.

The provision did not merely compensate victims.

It regulated power.

By emphasizing alternative remedies such as compensation, civil suits, administrative sanctions and criminal proceedings against offending officers, the Court transformed a deterrent into a suggestion.

That distinction matters.

A deterrent commands compliance.

A suggestion invites balancing.

A deterrent changes behaviour.

A suggestion merely expresses disapproval.

The practical consequence is that the constitutional cost of violating non-derogable rights has been reduced.

Rights rarely disappear overnight.

More often, they remain on paper while their practical force is quietly diminished.

That is why Faruku is so significant.

The issue is not whether rights still exist.

The issue is whether violating them has become cheaper.

ARTICLE 44 WAS WRITTEN IN BLOOD, NOT THEORY

Perhaps the most troubling feature of the judgment is its apparent detachment from the constitutional history that produced Article 44 itself.

Article 44 did not emerge from academic theory.

It did not emerge from abstract constitutional philosophy.

It emerged from Uganda’s encounter with arbitrary power.

It emerged from detention without trial.

It emerged from torture.

It emerged from disappearances.

It emerged from constitutional crises that taught painful lessons about what happens when power operates without meaningful restraint.

The framers of the 1995 Constitution understood something simple:

Power rarely restrains itself.

That understanding explains why certain rights were elevated beyond ordinary balancing exercises.

The Constitution does not merely describe freedom from torture as important.

It describes it as non-derogable.

That distinction is critical.

A right that may be balanced against competing interests is fundamentally different from a right that may not.

The Court repeatedly invokes society’s interest in prosecution.

But Article 44 itself represents a balancing exercise already undertaken by the framers.

They considered the demands of security.

They considered public order.

They considered law enforcement.

They nevertheless chose to place certain rights beyond derogation.

The question therefore is not whether courts should rebalance those interests today.

The question is whether courts are free to rebalance what the Constitution has already balanced.

That question deserves far greater attention than it has thus far received.

LEGAL CULTURE: A PERSONAL OBSERVATION

Years ago, I appeared before a Chief Magistrate in a criminal matter that had stagnated for nearly three years.

I argued that the accused person’s constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial had been violated.

The Magistrate looked at me and asked:

“Are you sure the Constitution says the hearing must be speedy?”

I answered in the affirmative.

A copy of the Constitution was produced.

The word was found.

The Magistrate then asked:

“But Counsel, why are you over-lawyering?, I thought you are in a hurry and have other things to do? Me I want to adjourn my matters today and travel for the weekend”

Many younger lawyers would find that exchange difficult to believe.

That is precisely the point.

For the last two decades Uganda’s legal culture has been evolving.

Slowly.

Imperfectly.

Painfully.

But undeniably.

Rights increasingly ceased to be aspirations.

They increasingly became enforceable commands.

Lawyers became bolder.

Judges became more receptive.

Constitutional litigation became more meaningful.

Decisions such as Uganda Law Society v Attorney General, Uganda vs Ssekabira Robert and 11 others, and others collectively contributed to that transformation.

The cases were not identical.

The rights involved were not identical.

But together they built something larger than individual precedents.

They built a culture.

A culture in which State actors increasingly understood that constitutional violations carry consequences.

Faruku teaches a different lesson.

THE COURT’S BALANCING EXERCISE

To criticize the judgment honestly, one must first acknowledge its strongest argument.

Society possesses a legitimate interest in the prosecution of crime.

Victims possess rights.

Public safety matters.

Few reasonable people would celebrate a system in which serious offenders automatically escape accountability because constitutional violations occurred during investigation.

That concern deserves respect.

I do not pretend the question is easy.

There are undoubtedly hard cases at the margins.

But the answer to a difficult question is not to abandon deterrence altogether.

The Court’s solution effectively transfers the cost of constitutional violations away from the State and onto the victim of those violations.

The Court assures us that alternative remedies remain available.

Compensation.

Civil litigation.

Administrative sanctions.

Criminal prosecution of offending officers.

In theory, this appears balanced.

In practice, it appears detached from reality.

How many torture survivors successfully litigate compensation claims after years of detention, trial, imprisonment, poverty and trauma?

How many possess the resources necessary to commence fresh proceedings against the very institutions that violated their rights?

The remedy exists on paper.

Life exists in reality.

The two are not always the same.

THE REALITY PROBLEM

Constitutional theory cannot be divorced from constitutional reality.

Uganda is not debating torture in a vacuum.

Uganda is not debating arbitrary detention in a vacuum.

Uganda is not debating abuse of power in a vacuum.

We are debating these issues within a society where allegations of torture remain common, where unlawful detention continues to generate public controversy and where citizens routinely question whether constitutional safeguards are sufficient to restrain State power.

Perhaps the most chilling symbol of this reality is linguistic.

Ugandans now speak of “drones” not as aircraft but as a particular form of feared encounter with power.

Think about that.

Think about how much constitutional failure must occur before a society casually incorporates the language of disappearance into everyday conversation.

That normalization did not happen by accident.

It happened because constitutional safeguards increasingly appeared uncertain.

The question is whether Faruku strengthens those safeguards or weakens them.

I fear it does the latter.

FROM BROWN TO PLESSY

The analogy may appear provocative.

It is intended to be.

In 1896, the United States Supreme Court decided Plessy v Ferguson.

The Court did not abolish equality.

It merely reinterpreted it in a manner that dramatically reduced its practical force.

Rights remained on paper.

Their effectiveness diminished in reality.

Fifty-eight years later, Brown v Board of Education repudiated that approach.

The lesson is not about race.

The lesson is about constitutional trajectories.

Constitutional progress is not inevitable.

Rights expand.

Rights contract.

Courts advance liberty.

Courts retreat from it.

Faruku does not abolish Article 44.

It does something more subtle.

And therefore potentially more consequential.

It preserves the right while reducing the consequences of violating it.

That is the structural similarity.

In neither case was the constitutional right formally erased.

Instead, the practical cost of ignoring it became negotiable.

That is how constitutional regressions often occur.

Not through dramatic declarations.

Not through open hostility to rights.

But through incremental reductions in consequence.

History teaches that constitutional decline rarely begins when courts announce that rights no longer matter.

It begins when courts assure us that rights still matter while simultaneously reducing the cost of violating them.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court may reverse Faruku.

It may not.

That question will be answered in due course.

The more profound question concerns constitutional culture.

For two decades Uganda appeared to be moving toward a constitutional order in which rights carried consequences and power carried limits.

Faruku signals movement in the opposite direction.

Whether that signal becomes a turning point or merely a temporary detour remains unknown.

History will answer that question.

The rest of us must live through it.

If future generations inherit a stronger constitutional culture, Faruku will be remembered as a wrong turn that was eventually corrected.

If they inherit a weaker one, where torture remains illegal but increasingly inexpensive for the State, they may remember it differently.

Not as the day constitutional rights disappeared.

But as the day violating them became cheaper.

Not as the day the Constitution died.

But as the day it was asked to whisper where once it could roar.

DISCLAIMER:

The contents of this Blog are not intended to be used as a substitute for legal advice. The author shall not accept liability for use of the contents of this Blog as legal advice. Readers are encuraged to consult qualified advocates for real life situations for legal advice.

JOIN THE UNDERGROUND AND FUEL THE MOVEMENT

We have created a dedicated fans WhatsApp Channel. Don’t miss the latest updates, get early bird access to our latest blog posts and more, so much more. Click the following link to follow the Channel: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb9BQqw5a246bWVsLl3j

Independent institutional critique and advocacy for a radical overhaul of legal culture require time, deep research, and uncompromised independence. If these narratives bring value to your legal journey or challenge your perspective, please visit our HOME PAGE to see how you can support this platform directly and keep the critique fierce and relentless.

Enen Ambrose. Advocate

Member, Judiciary Affairs Committee,

Uganda Law Society

& Founder–Enen Legal World

June 2, 2026