Wakilii

Kabwiso Abdulrahman v Uganda and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 33 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCICD 14 · 2025 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for enforcement of human rights arising from criminal pre-trial proceedings
Decision
Application partly allowed — violation of 48-hour constitutional requirement upheld; torture allegations dismissed for insufficient evidence; application dismissed against 1st Respondent on preliminary objection

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The High Court held that the applicant's right to be produced in court within 48 hours was violated where he was arrested on 18 September 2023 and first arraigned on 16 October 2023. However, the applicant failed to discharge the burden of proving allegations of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment with cogent and credible evidence. The application was dismissed against the 1st Respondent on the preliminary objection that Uganda (represented by the DPP) was not the proper party—only the Attorney General can be sued for acts of state agents. The court cautioned Crimes Intelligence, Kololo to desist from holding suspects beyond 48 hours without court authorization.

Outcome

Application partly allowed — violation of 48-hour constitutional requirement upheld; torture allegations dismissed for insufficient evidence; application dismissed against 1st Respondent on preliminary objection

Facts

The applicant, a suspect in a terrorism case, was arrested on 18 September 2023 from Akwarikwari village in Bukedea District. He alleged he was tortured at Crimes Intelligence, Kololo by Uganda Police and Military Intelligence officers to force him to confess ADF membership. He claimed multiple acts of physical and psychological torture including beating, being made to sleep in water, handcuffing, stripping, genital torture with sticks and needles, waterboarding, and being forced to make video statements. He was first produced in court on 16 October 2023, approximately one month after arrest. A medical examination on Police Form 24 on 26 September 2023 showed no injuries or scars. He was charged in the International Crimes Division alongside eight others in Criminal Case No. 1 of 2024. This application sought declarations that his rights were violated, that the trial was a nullity, and claimed damages.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant's non-derogable rights guaranteed under Article 44 of the Constitution were infringed upon and/or threatened.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?
  3. Whether the 1st Respondent (Uganda) is a proper party to this suit.

Orders

  • The Application is dismissed against the 1st Respondent (Uganda) for being a wrong party.
  • The Application proceeds only against the 2nd Respondent (Attorney General).
  • The Application succeeds only to the extent that the Applicant was detained for more than 48 hours before being arraigned in court.
  • The perpetrators at Crimes Intelligence, Kololo are cautioned to desist from holding anyone in custody for more than 48 hours without a court pronouncement.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Proper Parties — Standing to Sue Government — Attorney General as Sole Proper Defendant
The Attorney General is the sole proper party to be sued for civil claims against the Government of Uganda, including human rights enforcement actions arising from alleged tortious acts committed by state agents such as police officers or military intelligence. Uganda represented by the Director of Public Prosecutions is not a proper party because neither the DPP nor Uganda Police is a body corporate with capacity to sue or be sued.
Constitutional Law — Fundamental Rights — Right to Personal Liberty — 48-Hour Rule for Production in Court
Article 23(4) of the Constitution requires that any person arrested or detained upon reasonable suspicion of having committed a criminal offence must be brought to court as soon as possible but in any case not later than 48 hours from the time of arrest. Where a suspect is detained for close to one month without being produced in court and no explanation is given for the delay, the constitutional right has been violated.
Human Rights — Burden of Proof — Allegations of Torture — Requirement for Cogent and Credible Evidence
In cases of alleged violation of rights through torture, the burden of proof lies on the applicant to prove his allegations with cogent and credible evidence. Where torture allegations remain extremely controversial as cases of 'your word against my word', the court requires substantive evidence such as independent medical expert reports, testimonies from prison officials, court records from first appearance, or other corroborating evidence. Bare allegations unsupported by such evidence are insufficient to discharge the burden of proof.
Human Rights — Torture — Definition and Elements — Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act
The ingredients of torture under Section 2(1) of the Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act 2012 are: (1) an act or omission which causes severe pain or suffering whether physical or mental; (2) the pain or suffering is intentional; (3) the pain or suffering is inflicted or instigated by or with the consent or acquiescence of any person whether a public official or other person acting in official or private capacity; (4) the pain or suffering is inflicted for purposes of obtaining information or confession, punishment, intimidation or coercion; and (5) the pain or suffering is inflicted on the complainant/applicant.
Human Rights — Remedies — Satisfaction — Cautions Against Future Violations
Under Section 9(2)(c)(v) of the Human Rights Enforcement Act, a court may grant satisfaction as a remedy in human rights cases, which may include criminal and other judicial and administrative sanctions against persons for violations. Where a violation of the constitutional 48-hour requirement is established, the court may use its discretion to caution the perpetrators at the detention facility to desist from holding suspects beyond 48 hours without court authorization.

Legislation cited (44)

Cases cited (10)

  • Dan Alinange v Director of Public Prosecutions (Miscellaneous Cause No. 167 of 2017)
  • Charles Harry Twagira v Attorney General & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2007)
  • Nakamatte Aidah v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 22 of 2024)
  • Namuganza Rahma v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 23 of 2024)
  • Twine Emmanuel v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 3 of 2024)
  • Mackay v Attorney General & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 12 of 2018)
  • Issa Wazembe v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 154 of 2016)
  • Nsereko Musa v Attorney General & 15 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 386 of 2020)
  • Nakamatte v Uganda [2024] UGHCICD 11
  • Paul Wanyoto Mugoya v Sgt. Ouma & Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 91 of 2021)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Kabwiso Abdulrahman v Uganda and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 33 of 2024) [2025] UGHCICD 14 (21 January 2025)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.