KAMPALA, Uganda | The Constitutional Court of Uganda has upheld the legality of police powers to carry out preventive arrests, dismissing a petition that questioned their constitutionality. Delivered on November 20, 2024, the judgment affirmed that the law permits preventive detention as a necessary measure to maintain public safety and order, provided safeguards are adhered to.

The petitioners, human rights advocates Annet Tendo and Musiime Alex Martin, argued that the police uses powers under Section 24 of the Police Act and Sections 24, 26, and 27 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act, without clear guidelines or limits, resulting in arbitrary arrests and prolonged detention. They contended that this practice infringes on constitutional rights to liberty and a fair hearing and undermines Uganda’s international commitments to protect individuals from arbitrary detention. Their case sought to address what they described as a legal gap that permits police officers to act with excessive discretion, often at the expense of fundamental freedoms.

Preventive arrest allows the police to detain individuals who are suspected of preparing to commit offenses, ostensibly to protect public safety. However, the practice has drawn criticism, particularly for its use against political figures. Opposition leaders have repeatedly been detained under the pretext of preventing potential unrest, with police claiming these measures are necessary to avert public disorder. Critics argue that such actions often serve as tools for political suppression rather than genuine law enforcement.

In defending the law, the Attorney General emphasized that preventive arrests are constitutional and essential for maintaining law and order. The state argued that Uganda’s legal framework provides safeguards to prevent misuse, including the requirement for detainees to be presented before a court within 48 hours or released on police bond. These provisions, according to the Attorney General, ensure that preventive arrests are carried out within strict legal boundaries.

Justice Irene Mulyagonja, delivering the court’s judgment, agreed that preventive arrest is a legitimate tool under the law. She emphasized that the law does not grant unchecked powers but instead aligns with constitutional principles and Uganda’s obligations under international law. The judgment highlighted the importance of procedural safeguards, such as timely judicial oversight, to prevent abuse and ensure that individual rights are protected.

While the court acknowledged concerns about how preventive arrest has been applied in some cases, it concluded that the law itself is not unconstitutional. The judgment stressed that issues of enforcement and misuse should be addressed through oversight and accountability mechanisms within the existing legal framework.

The petition was dismissed in its entirety, with no costs awarded due to its public interest nature. The ruling reinforces the police’s authority to use preventive arrest while highlighting the need for adherence to procedural safeguards. The decision has sparked renewed debate on the balance between public safety and individual rights in Uganda, particularly in politically sensitive contexts.