Fredrick Egonda-Ntende: Uganda Torture Accountability Still Lacking

• Retired Justice Fredrick Egonda-Ntende recently highlighted the Uganda Law Society's statutory duty to protect the public, particularly concerning accountability for past torture allegations.
• He referenced the infamous Nalufenya Police Station, where widespread torture allegations emerged about a decade ago, noting the lack of clear accountability despite public relief when the unit was disbanded.
• Justice Egonda-Ntende underscored that torture is an offense under both Ugandan and international law, reminding that Uganda domesticated treaties establishing the International Criminal Court.
• The ICC holds concurrent jurisdiction and can intervene to investigate and prosecute crimes like torture when national authorities are unable or unwilling to act.
• He questioned whether victims of torture in Uganda, including those from Nalufenya, have received justice, emphasizing the ongoing need for accountability.

Where states prove unable or unwilling to enforce criminal law for certain grave offenses, the international community, through mechanisms like the International Criminal Court, is empowered to intervene.

Retired Justice Fredrick Egonda-Ntende recently addressed the opening of a Digital Transformation Festival on September 17, 2026, reflecting on the profound societal shifts brought about by information and communication technologies over the past three decades. Despite these revolutionary changes, he underscored the enduring sanctity of fundamental human values, particularly the dignity of individuals and human life. His remarks served as a poignant reminder that technological advancement must not overshadow core ethical principles.

Justice Egonda-Ntende, humbly describing himself as a retired judge navigating a new phase of life, used the platform to highlight critical obligations of the legal profession. He specifically drew attention to the Uganda Law Society's (ULS) statutory duties as outlined in the Uganda Law Society Act. Among these are mandates to represent, protect, and assist its members concerning practice conditions, and crucially, to protect and assist the public in Uganda on all matters touching upon, ancillary to, or incidental to the law. This broad obligation places a significant responsibility on the ULS to uphold justice and public welfare.

A central point of Justice Egonda-Ntende's address revolved around the persistent issue of torture accountability in Uganda. He recalled the notoriety of Nalufenya Police Station approximately a decade prior, which had become infamous due to widespread allegations of torture against individuals held there. The public reaction to these reports was significant, culminating in a collective "sigh of relief" when a change in police leadership led to the termination of the unit's control over the facility.

However, Justice Egonda-Ntende expressed uncertainty regarding whether genuine accountability for the acts perpetrated at Nalufenya was ever achieved. He acknowledged the possibility of convictions in courts of law that might have resulted from the forcible extraction of confession statements, but the broader question of justice for victims remained open. This period, he noted, was not an isolated incident in Uganda's history, drawing parallels to the "infamous Nakasero dungeons" during the Idi Amin regime, suggesting a recurring pattern of such dark episodes. The Uganda Law Society, he stressed, carries an unquestionable statutory duty to protect the public in all law-related matters, particularly in light of such historical and ongoing concerns.

Justice Egonda-Ntende emphasized that torture is unequivocally recognized as an offense under both international criminal law and Uganda's own municipal legal framework. He reiterated the fundamental principle that states bear the primary responsibility for protecting their populations through the enforcement of law. While criminal law traditionally fell within national jurisdiction, the emergence of international criminal law and jurisdiction has introduced a crucial layer of oversight and accountability.

The Uganda Law Society's statutory obligations, particularly its duty to protect and assist the public in all legal matters, underscore the importance of addressing such grave violations. This wide-ranging mandate necessitates a proactive approach to ensure that legal mechanisms are effectively utilized to prevent torture and secure justice for victims. The retired judge urged the ULS to explore all available opportunities to fulfill this critical public protection duty.

In situations where states are unable or unwilling to fulfill their primary responsibility to enforce criminal law for certain offenses, the international community is empowered to intervene. Justice Egonda-Ntende highlighted the International Criminal Court (ICC) as a key mechanism in this regard. He noted Uganda's active participation in the finalization of the treaties that established the ICC, even hosting a related conference, and confirmed that these treaties have since been domesticated into Ugandan law.

The ICC possesses concurrent jurisdiction with national authorities for specific crimes, meaning it can investigate, prosecute, and render judgment when domestic avenues for justice are insufficient. Torture, as a grave offense, falls squarely within the ICC's jurisdiction under these circumstances. Justice Egonda-Ntende concluded by posing a direct question: whether victims of torture at Nalufenya Police Station or other locations in Uganda have, in fact, received justice, stating his unawareness of such outcomes. This query serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing challenge of achieving accountability for state-perpetrated torture in Uganda.

This article serves as a critical reminder for legal professionals in Uganda regarding the persistent issue of torture accountability, particularly concerning past incidents like Nalufenya. It underscores the Uganda Law Society's statutory duty to protect the public and highlights the potential for leveraging international criminal law mechanisms, such as the ICC, where domestic avenues for justice remain unfulfilled, informing client advisory and human rights advocacy.

Source: Insights from a recent address by Fredrick Egonda-Ntende