By Steven Masiga
As Uganda enters another electoral cycle ahead of the 2026 general elections, I feel compelled to raise awareness about the rights of accused persons in criminal trials. Too often, individuals who are simply facing charges are hastily labelled by the public as thieves, corrupt officials, defilers, or murderers, yet this runs counter to our Constitution and to basic principles of justice.
It is important to highlight that the Constitution of Uganda, which is the supreme law of the land, offers clear and unequivocal protection to anyone accused of committing a crime. Article 28(3)(a) plainly asserts that every person charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty.
This presumption of innocence is not merely a technicality; it is a fundamental safeguard intended to protect any citizen from unfair labels, victimization, and prejudgment. The reasoning is clear: in any criminal proceeding, the burden of proof rests on the party alleging wrongdoing, whether that is the complainant or the state itself.
This principle is not unique to Ugandan law. It is reflected globally, including in Article 66(1)(2)(3) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which imposes the burden of proof squarely on the prosecution. Courts in Uganda have consistently upheld this doctrine in their rulings, forming strong precedents that every judicial officer is bound to respect.
It is also crucial for the public to understand that the right to apply for bail, as enshrined in Article 23(6) of the Constitution, is an extension of the same presumption of innocence. Bail does not mean a suspect has been absolved, nor does it confirm guilt—it simply affirms their right to liberty while the state carries the burden of proving its allegations.
I therefore appeal to voters, communities, and leaders in Uganda, including here in Bugisu, to be mindful of these constitutional provisions and to refrain from victimizing fellow citizens with pending criminal cases. A person under trial remains innocent in the eyes of the law and retains the right to participate fully in civic life: they can vote, contest elections, marry, and move freely unless a competent court decides otherwise.
Our legal system even recognises that it is better to release 99 guilty persons than to convict a single innocent individual. That is why, in any criminal proceeding, the focus must shift from the mere occurrence of a crime to whether the accused can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have committed it.
The Evidence Act, particularly Sections 101, 105, and 106, reinforces this burden of proof, requiring the prosecution, not the accused, to produce evidence linking the suspect to the alleged offence.
It is equally vital to remember that an accused person is under no obligation to prove their innocence. In fact, the law recognises several defences, which may either absolve an individual or mitigate their liability. Among the statutory and judicial defences available in criminal proceedings are: ignorance of the law, claim of right, accident, mistake of fact, insanity, intoxication, judicial immunity, defence of property, immunity, and innocence.
These defences are well established in Ugandan jurisprudence and are critical to protecting the rights of any person facing trial.
In conclusion, as we approach the 2026 elections, let us avoid the temptation to pass judgment on accused persons prematurely. Let us uphold the spirit and letter of our Constitution by treating them with dignity and fairness, until and unless a court of law declares otherwise.
The author is a law researcher based in Mbale!
If you would like your article/opinion to be published on Uganda’s most authoritative news platform, send your submission on: [email protected]. You can also follow DailyExpress on WhatsApp and on Twitter (X) for realtime updates.
