Steady v Attorney General [2022] UGHRC 15
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
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.
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 Uganda Human Rights Commission held that UPDF soldiers violated Steady Amos's constitutional rights by beating him with sticks and gun butts during arrest and detention, and forcing him to slash grass overnight at the barracks. The Commission found these acts constituted torture and forced labour contrary to Articles 24 and 25 of the Constitution. The Attorney General was held vicariously liable and ordered to pay UGX 15,000,000 in damages.
Outcome
Complainant awarded damages totalling UGX 15,000,000 for violations of constitutional rights to freedom from torture and forced labour
Facts
On 3 July 2010 at approximately 9:30pm, Steady Amos, aged 54, was at home reprimanding his son Kanyangoma Bahati for stealing. The son ran out and returned with two armed UPDF soldiers from Budiba Army Detach. The soldiers beat Amos with sticks and gun butts outside his home, then took him to Budiba trading centre where the beating continued. The defence secretary Omuhereza Basiima intervened but the soldiers refused to release Amos and instead took him to the barracks. At the barracks, Amos was detained overnight and forced to slash the compound while being beaten throughout the night. The defence secretary returned in the morning, secured his release, and took him for medical treatment. Medical examination two weeks later revealed major bruises on the back, severe chest pains, punctured wounds and musculo-skeletal pain.
Issues
- Whether the respondent's agents violated the complainant's right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.
- Whether the respondent's agents deprived the complainant of his right to freedom from slavery and servitude.
- Whether the respondent (Attorney General) is liable for the violations.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the remedies sought.
Orders
- Complaint allowed.
- Respondent ordered to pay the complainant UGX 10,000,000 as general damages for violation of his right to freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
- Respondent ordered to pay the complainant UGX 5,000,000 as general damages for violation of his right to freedom from slavery and servitude.
- Republic of Uganda requested to initiate an effective and impartial investigation into the circumstances of arrest, detention and treatment of the complainant.
- Republic of Uganda requested to train security officers on custodial safeguards and the prohibition of torture and slavery.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (9)
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 24
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 25
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 44
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 50(1)
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 53(2)
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 119(4)
- Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act 2012 s.3
- Evidence Act Cap 6 s.101(1)
- Evidence Act Cap 6 s.102
Cases cited (7)
- Fred Tumuramye v Attorney General (UHRC No. 264 of 1999)
- Iwina v Arua Town Council [1997] HCB 28
- Muwonge v Attorney General [1967] EA 17
- George Asiimwe v Attorney General (HCCCS No. 481 of 1997)
- Prosecutor Vs. Kunarac, Kovac and Vukovic, Judgment of 22 Feb 2001, Case No IT-96-23-T and 23/1
- Siliadin Vs. France , Chamber Judgment, European Court of Human Rights, Application No 73316/01, 26 Oct 2005
- Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v. Zimbabwe No. 245/02
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.