The Constitutional court has struck down provisions of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act that allowed courts to automatically acquit accused persons once their rights had been violated.In a landmark ruling, a panel of five judges led by justice Oscar Kihika, alongside Justices Margaret Tibulya, Moses Kazibwe Kawumi, Asa Mugenyi and Musa Ssekaana, declared Section 11(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act unconstitutional.The court held that the provisions violated the Constitution by denying victims of crime the right to have criminal cases fully heard and determined.The decision arose from a petition filed by lawyers Faruku Muhamed, John Musinguzi and Ibrahim Bunyasin against the Attorney General. The matter was later consolidated with a separate constitutional petition stemming from corruption-related proceedings involving former Namutumba County MP Paul Akamba, whose charges were subsequently withdrawn by the state.In its judgment, the court found that the impugned provisions permitted acquittals without a full trial on substantive criminal charges, thereby undermining constitutional principles of justice.The judges held that victims of crime are entitled to a fair hearing and that the law unfairly deprived them of the opportunity to have their complaints heard and determined by a competent court.The consolidated petition challenged provisions of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act that allowed accused persons to escape criminal liability whenever courts found that their non-derogable rights, including freedom from torture and the right to a fair hearing, had been violated during investigations or prosecution.The petitioners argued that the law created a loophole through which criminal proceedings could be terminated before evidence was fully examined.The matter was later joined with proceedings initiated by Akamba, who sought to halt his prosecution after alleging that he was abducted from court premises shortly after being granted bail, detained incommunicado for seven days and subjected to torture before being re-arrested on corruption-related charges.During the hearing, the Attorney General challenged Sections 7, 8 and 11(2) of the Act, arguing that automatic acquittals based on rights violations created a legal anomaly that favoured accused persons while disregarding the interests of victims and complainants.Government lawyers maintained that while courts have a duty to remedy violations of suspects’ rights, such remedies should be discretionary and should not automatically terminate criminal proceedings.However, 22 intervenors led by lawyer Abubaker Sekanjako defended the law, arguing that it was enacted to deter torture, unlawful detention and other abuses by state actors.The intervenors relied on previous court decisions, including the 2007 case involving Dr Kizza Besigye, in which criminal proceedings were halted because of grave and systemic violations of constitutional rights.Prof Christopher Mbazira, appearing as amicus curiae, urged the court to consider Uganda’s history of human rights abuses and the need for effective remedies where non-derogable rights have been violated.In its judgment, the court rejected arguments that the right to a fair hearing applies only to accused persons. The judges held that Article 28(1) of the Constitution protects “a person”, a term broad enough to include victims whose interests are affected by criminal proceedings.The court observed that victims occupy a central position in the criminal justice system as complainants, witnesses and beneficiaries of compensation or restitution orders.The judges further noted that criminal proceedings increasingly involve the determination of victims’ rights, including compensation claims under various laws.According to the court, Section 11(2) unlawfully denied victims the opportunity to be heard by automatically terminating criminal trials once a rights violation had been established.The court held that the provisions contravened Articles 20, 21, 28 and 44 of the Constitution by upsetting the balance between the rights of accused persons and those of victims.While emphasising that allegations of torture and other human rights violations must be addressed, the judges ruled that such violations do not automatically extinguish criminal responsibility.Instead, courts may exclude illegally obtained evidence, award compensation or grant other appropriate remedies while allowing criminal trials to proceed. The court further held that acquittals can only result from a full trial in which evidence has been properly evaluated.The judges distinguished the case from the Dr Besigye precedent, noting that the earlier decision arose from exceptional circumstances involving systemic violations that rendered a fair trial impossible.In its final orders, the court declared Section 11(2)(a), (b) and (c) unconstitutional to the extent that it permits acquittals without the hearing and determination of substantive criminal charges.The court also affirmed that victims’ right to a fair hearing is constitutionally protected and must be safeguarded throughout criminal proceedings. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.The ruling has since attracted criticism from some members of the Uganda Law Society, who argue that it weakens legal safeguards against torture and could embolden abuse by state actors.The post Torture of suspects not reason enough for acquittal, Constitutional court rules appeared first on The Observer.