Transcript Evaluation of torture in Uganda: Trends and Practices

The Right to Freedom from Torture,
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment.
Uganda’s Experience
Presented by
Hon. Wilfred Niwagaba
Member of Parliament
REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
International and National Legal
Framework relating to torture
In Uganda, torture is specifically prohibited under Article 24
of the Constitution which states that: “No person shall be
subjected to any form of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.” Article 44 also makes the right to
protection against torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment non-derogable.
• The prohibition against torture and ill-treatment is also set
out in major international and regional instruments ratified
by Uganda. These include: -The Universal Declaration of
Human Rights(Art 5), International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights(Art 7), the Convention against Torture,
Convention on the Rights of the Child(Art 37) and the
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
•
Why the Initiative for a Specific Law on
Torture

Over the years, the violation of the right to
freedom from torture and ill-treatment has
remained the highest recorded violation. In 2011
the UHRC noted a 55% increase in the violation
against torture .

Of all the awards for human rights violations
awarded by the Human Rights Commission,
72.5% are awards related to torture. These
numbers are reflected in the financial loss
incurred by Government every year, towards
compensation for victims of torture.
Why the Initiative for a Specific
Law on Torture

Torture is only guaranteed by Article 24 of the
Uganda Constitution and made an absolute
freedom by Article 44(a).

However, the current penal law falls short of
adequately providing a framework for prosecuting
the intricate and vile offence of torture.There
was no specific law that criminated torture, and
so it was treated as an assault or grievous bodily
harm under the Penal Code Act. It is only the
Anti-Terrorism Act of 2002 that contains a
specific offense of torture but it does not define
the offence of torture.
Why the Initiative for a Specific
Law on Torture

In its recommendation to the Uganda State
report, the Committee Against Torture
(CAT), the State was called upon to take all
necessary legislative, administrative and
judicial measures to prevent acts of torture
including steps to eliminate impunity of
alleged perpetrators of acts of torture, carry
out prompt, impartial and exhaustive
investigations, try and where appropriate
convict perpetrators of torture and impose
appropriate sentences on offenders and
compensate victims.
THE PROHIBITION AND PREVENTION
OF TORTURE ACT 2012
•
On the 26th of April 2012,
Parliament passed the Prohibition
and Prevention of torture law.
•
The law is still pending Presidential
ascent before it come into effect.
HIGHLIGHTS OF ANTI -TORTURE LAW
•
•
•
•
•
•
Widening the definition of torture to include private individuals:The new law provides a wide definition to torture to include individual
persons and non-state actors,
Individual responsibility:- Individual persons and non-state actors
shall be held individually responsible for acts of torture’
Supervisors shall be held liable in cases where they either condoned or
were aware of the on-going acts of torture,
Punishment for the offence of torture:- Person convicted of torture
shall be liable for 15 years imprisonment,
Inadmissibility of evidence obtained by means of torture:- Any
evidence obtained by means of torture inadmissible in court, except in
instances where such evidence is being used against the alleged
perpetrator of torture,
Inadmissibility of evidence obtained by means of torture:- Torture
is made an international crime, and provides for the prosecution of any
person within the territory of Uganda who is alleged to have
committed torture and is resident in Uganda no matter where the act
was committed.
Strategies and Procedure Used to
Have the Law Passed
Documented information on number of
cases and trends of torture, victims and
perpetrators.
 Conducted a survey which found the that
one in ten persons in the survey
population in the survey areas had been
tortured.
 This information was used to persuade
the authorities on the magnitude of the
problem and need for reform.

Strategies and Procedure Used to
Have the Law Passed

Propelled by the desire to advance a cause and
motivated by the power of, and in, numbers,
various NGOs working on torture formed a
coalition named the Coalition Against Torture in
early 2004.

The main objective of CAT, at the time, was to
rally Civil Society organisations (CSO) and
Community Based Organisations (CBO) with the
task to identify, document and package
information on torture and use it for collective
lobbying, media campaigns and awareness- raising.
Strategies and Procedure Used to
Have the Law Passed

The UHRC together with the Coalition Against
Torture identified a team of legal experts who
drafted the anti-torture bill.

The UHRC and the Coalition then identified a
dedicated and focused Member of Parliament to
table the bill before Parliament.

Members of Parliament were sensitized, and
informed of the situation of torture in the
country with statistics. They were also lobbied.
Strategies and Procedure Used to
Have the Law Passed

Persistent campaigns and advocacy were done by the UHRC
and the Coalition in the Justice Law and Order Sector (JLOS)
to ensure the enactment of an anti torture law.

Advocacy was also done in the media, judiciary, JLOS
institution, academia, politicians, donors and the general
public.

The UHRC and the Coalition stared publishing opinion
articles in the media and actively participated in public talk
shows in order to highlight the importance of the bill.

Because of these measures, the bill received support from
the public and all stakeholders.
Why Private member’s bill?

A government initiated bill would have had the whole
concept referred to the Uganda Law Reform
Commission for a baseline study. There was concern
that this might be a long process given the fact that
the Law Reform Commission has its own priorities
and bureaucracies to deal with and this might delay
the process and prolong the suffering of torture
victims.

Besides, the government may not take the obligation
to outlaw torture as a matter of priority. Therefore
the option of having a government initiated bill was
thought to be inappropriate, a strategy to bring a
private members bill was thought to be faster.
Presentation of a petition

In order to catch the attention of the
legislature and demonstrate that the need
for a law on torture is not just a NGO
initiative but one that enjoys the support of
the wider population, the Coalition collected
signatures for a petition to be presented to
the Speaker of Parliament.

This drew the attention of the Speaker to
the specific issues of torture and also gained
mileage for the bill in the press.
Conclusion

The task was enormous; but with the abilities of the
Members of Parliament, UHRC, the Coalition and the general
consensus in our population we managed to have the bill
passed by Parliament.
•
For those who wish to have such law passed in your
countries, you need to build on the achievements thus far,
maintain the momentum and look beyond yourselves in
search for strategies to ensure that a law is enacted.
•
Though the elimination of torture and ill-treatment cannot
be conceived solely in legal terms, we believe that the new
law will go a long way in eliminating torture in Uganda.
Thank you for listening