OPINION | As 2024 drew to a close, Ugandans were met with an end-of-year message from the President that stirred debate in legal circles and beyond. His directive to the police to stop issuing bonds to suspects and his outreach to the Chief Justice regarding bail for accused persons ignited a conversation on the delicate interplay between executive authority, judicial independence, and constitutional principles.

Police Bond and Bail

Understanding the concepts of bail and bond is essential to appreciating the weight of the President’s remarks. Under Section 25 of the Police Act, a police bond is a mechanism that allows the release of a suspect while investigations continue, with a guarantee of their return when summoned. This ensures the police’s capacity to investigate without unduly depriving suspects of liberty. On the other hand, bail—enshrined in Article 23(6)(a) of the Ugandan Constitution—is a court-sanctioned release of an accused person, premised on the guarantee of their return for trial. Unlike police bond, bail involves judicial oversight and adherence to constitutional safeguards, including the presumption of innocence.

The distinction lies in the authority granting the liberty: police bond is administrative, while bail is judicial. Both are rooted in principles of justice and the presumption of innocence, protecting individuals from prolonged detention without trial.

Are the President’s Orders within Legal Bounds?

The President’s directive to the police raises critical constitutional questions. Under Uganda’s laws, the police’s authority to issue bonds is a statutory provision. It is not subject to executive whims but is grounded in the Police Act. The directive’s legality is, therefore, questionable; as it undermines statutory safeguards ensuring suspects’ rights are not arbitrarily curtailed. Executive interference in such matters threatens the rule of law, risking a slippery slope toward authoritarianism.

Is Judicial Independence at Risk?

The President’s engagement with the Chief Justice regarding bail decisions also warrants scrutiny. Bail is not a privilege but a constitutional right, granted or denied based on principles of law. Judicial officers rely on guidelines such as The Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2022, issued by the Chief Justice, to ensure consistency and fairness in granting bail.

The judiciary’s independence, as stipulated in Article 128 of the Constitution, is fundamental. Any attempt to influence judicial decision-making, even indirectly, risks undermining this independence. While the President’s concerns may be well-intentioned, they appear to encroach on the judiciary’s mandate, creating a perception of executive overreach.

At the heart of the debate lies the constitutional presumption of innocence. By seeking to curb bail and bond, the President’s remarks inadvertently suggest a presumption of guilt. This undermines a cornerstone of justice—that every individual is innocent until proven guilty. Such rhetoric risks normalizing prolonged detention without trial, a scenario the framers of the Constitution sought to prevent.

Addressing the Root Cause

The President’s concerns are not unfounded. The misuse and commercialization of bail and bond are real challenges. Instances of judicial officers and police officials “selling” liberty undermine public trust in the justice system. However, circumventing constitutional safeguards is not the solution. Instead, the focus should shift to streamlining systems and rooting out corruption.

The inclusion of bail and bond provisions in the Constitution was deliberate, aimed at balancing individual liberty with the interests of justice. These safeguards ensure suspects are not unduly detained and that justice is not delayed. Removing or limiting these rights would be a step backward, risking the erosion of hard-won freedoms.

Rather than circumventing the law, the President should champion reforms that address the systemic flaws enabling the misuse of bail and bond. Strengthening oversight mechanisms, ensuring transparency, and investing in the judicial and police systems can restore public confidence. Fighting corruption—not curtailing constitutional rights—is the key to resolving these challenges.