Uganda’s judicial system is once again under scrutiny as Members of Parliament (MPs) on the Legal Committee express outrage over what they term as reckless handling of bail applications.
The debate which unfolded in Parliament saw lawmakers questioning the competence of judicial officers and call for a fundamental overhaul of the country’s bail laws.
The controversy erupted after legal experts and legislators accused certain judicial officers of inconsistencies in granting or denying bail.
Shadow Attorney General Medard Ssegoona questioned whether Uganda’s Judiciary has a mechanism to periodically review the decisions of its officers.
He further suggested that he would personally volunteer to be part of such a review process to ensure accountability.
The MPs were also shocked to learn that the Judiciary had written to the Commissioner of Prisons, Johnson Byabashaija demanding for a list of all the inmates on remand without trial prompting Ssegoona to question if the same Judiciary that committed these suspects has forgotten about the dates they were supposed to return to court for trial.
His remarks followed a revelation by Pamela Lamunu, Acting Chief Registrar who informed the MPs that the Judiciary had written to Uganda Prisons Services requesting for the list of all people on remand without trial.
Ssegoona’s concerns were echoed by seasoned lawmaker Abdu Katuntu, who proposed passing an independent law governing bail applications.
He argued that leaving bail decisions purely to judicial discretion has led to arbitrary rulings with some suspects getting bail under questionable circumstances while others particularly political detainees remain behind bars indefinitely.
“We should start thinking about moving away from the current guidelines and enacting substantive legislation that binds judicial officers,” said Katuntu. “It’s unfortunate because while judicial discretion is essential, some officers have exercised it in ways that defy logic and fairness.”
The remarks came as MPs rebuked the Judiciary for what they termed as reckless decision-making.
Some lawmakers went as far as questioning whether certain judges and magistrates even deserve their revered titles such as ‘Worships’ and ‘Lordships.’
The debate over Uganda’s bail system is not happening in isolation. For years, opposition figures and activists have decried the Judiciary’s apparent bias, particularly in cases involving political prisoners.
The ongoing detention of several opposition supporters under uncertain legal grounds has fueled claims that Uganda’s justice system is being weaponized against dissent.
Proponents of reform argue that an organised law would eliminate inconsistencies and ensure fairness. However, opposition warn that restricting judicial discretion could create a rigid system incapable of addressing the shades of individual cases.
For now, the fight for judicial accountability continues, with both sides of the political divide pushing for either more discretion or tighter legal constraints.
