KIRUHURA — Fifteen supporters of the National Unity Platform (NUP) opposition party appeared before the Kiruhura Magistrate’s Court today, marking their fourth month in pretrial detention despite the absence of a formal complainant in their case—a situation lawyers argue violates fundamental due process rights under Uganda’s justice system.
The group was arrested on November 6, 2025, and charged with offenses related to unlawful assembly and allegedly inciting violence, according to court documents reviewed by this reporter. However, defense attorneys have consistently noted that no individual or state agency has stepped forward as a complainant to substantiate the allegations—a procedural anomaly that has drawn scrutiny from legal observers.
“This is highly irregular,” said one of the defense lawyers, who requested anonymity. “Under Uganda’s Magistrates Courts Act and the Constitution, criminal proceedings typically require a complainant to initiate and sustain a case. To hold individuals for 120 days without anyone formally alleging harm raises serious questions about the basis for their continued detention.”
The defendants have been denied bail on three prior court appearances, with the prosecution citing “public order concerns” and potential flight risk. Yet the absence of a complainant has complicated efforts to establish prima facie evidence—a requirement for denying bail under Article 23(6) of Uganda’s Constitution, which states that “a person shall not be remanded in custody unless there is substantial doubt about his or her appearance for trial.”
Family members of the detainees told local journalists they have exhausted savings paying for transport to Kiruhura for repeated court sessions, only to see adjournments without substantive progress. “We don’t know what crime they committed because no one says they were harmed,” said a relative of one detainee. “Yet our sons remain in prison while their farms lie fallow and children go hungry.”
Legal experts note that prolonged pretrial detention without clear evidentiary basis contravenes both Ugandan law and international standards. The UN Human Rights Committee has repeatedly emphasized that pretrial detention should be “exceptional, not routine,” and must be justified by concrete risk—not mere suspicion.
Today’s hearing comes amid broader concerns about judicial backlogs and pretrial detention practices in Uganda. According to the Uganda Prison Service’s 2024 annual report, approximately 54 percent of inmates nationwide were awaiting trial—a figure rights groups say reflects systemic inefficiencies and, in some cases, politically motivated prosecutions.
Prosecutors have not publicly commented on why no complainant has been named in the Kiruhura case. Court records indicate the state is proceeding under provisions of the Penal Code Act that allow police to initiate certain public order cases without a private complainant. However, defense counsel argue that even in such instances, the state must demonstrate sufficient evidence to justify continued detention—a threshold they contend has not been met.
The magistrate is expected to rule today on the defense’s application for either dismissal of charges or grant of bail with reasonable conditions. Human rights monitors from Chapter Four Uganda and the Foundation for Human Rights Initiative are observing the proceedings.
