pressug.com News 24 7
Related Articles
Eight Ugandan activists who protested the East African Crude Oil Pipeline have walked free after spending nearly nine months in prison.
Their release should bring relief. Also, it should provoke national discomfort. They were sentenced to 11 months, but by the time judgment came, they had already served eight months and 17 days on remand. In practical terms, punishment arrived before conviction.
That is not efficient justice. It is justice turned upside down. The case is about more than eight individuals. It is about how Uganda handles dissent. The activists were arrested after a peaceful protest in Kampala on August 1, 2025.
What followed was a drawn-out legal process marked by repeated adjournments, denied bail applications, changing magistrates and postponed hearings because judicial officers were unavailable.
Four different judicial officers handled the matter. Even after instructions to conclude the case quickly, delays continued. This is where the real scandal lies. In any functioning democracy, the state may prosecute offences where evidence exists.
But the process itself must be fair, timely and proportionate. Courts are not supposed to become punishment by delay. Remand is not meant to substitute for sentencing. Administrative disorder should never cost citizens their liberty.
The human consequences were severe. One detainee lost her mother while in prison. Another lost his father. Bail was still denied. A plea bargain was reportedly suggested as a route to temporary release for burials.
That is a cruel choice: surrender your defence or miss burying a parent. Governments often argue that protests must be regulated to preserve order. Fair enough. Peaceful assembly is not a license for chaos.
But neither is public order a license for repression. Democracies mature by managing disagreement, not criminalising it. The deeper question for Uganda is simple: should criticism be treated as sabotage, or as feedback?
Projects such as EACOP are large, controversial and consequential. Supporters see jobs, investment and export revenue. Critics raise concerns about displacement, environment and governance.
In a confident state, both views are heard. Public scrutiny can improve execution, expose risks and build legitimacy. When dissenters are jailed for months, the message sent is different: silence first, answers later.
The approach rarely works. Punitive responses may deter some critics temporarily, but they often create martyrs, deepen mistrust and internationalise local disputes. They weaken faith in institutions and harden political divides.
Fear can suppress speech for a season. It cannot produce durable consent. Uganda needs a smarter model. First, protest-related cases should be fast-tracked. If the state believes an offence occurred, prove it promptly or release the accused.
Second, bail should be the norm for non-violent defendants, not an exception. Third, magistrate absenteeism and endless adjournments must attract administrative consequences.
Citizens should not lose freedom because courts are disorganised. Fourth, police must distinguish clearly between peaceful assembly and genuine criminality. Fifth, major national projects should include structured citizen consultation before tensions escalate. Listening early is cheaper than policing later.
Sixth, judicial independence must be visible, not merely proclaimed. Most of all, Uganda’s leaders should recognise that critics are not always enemies. Journalists, activists and opposition voices can be inconvenient. They can also be correct.
Related
, https://observer.ug/viewpoint/when-peaceful-protest-leads-to-prison-democracy-the-loser/
