The victims protections achieved in Faruku's case.

A New Dawn for Victims’ Rights: How Faruku Muhamed v. Attorney General Reshaped Ugandan Criminal Justice.

The Constitutional Court of Uganda shifted the landscape of criminal jurisprudence in its landmark ruling for Faruku Muhamed and Others v. Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Petition No. 17 of 2024). By striking down Section 11(2) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, 2019, the Court ended the automatic nullification of trials and subsequent acquittals of accused persons whose non-derogable rights were breached before or during trial. For decades, the Ugandan justice system heavily favored the procedural protections of the accused. If a suspect experienced a rights violation, such as torture or detention past the 48-hour limit, the law required an immediate dismissal of the case. This practice left the actual victims of crimes abandoned, with no recourse or closure.
The Faruku Muhamed decision changed this by introducing a balanced framework that guarantees a fair trial for both the accused and the victim. Below is an in-depth breakdown of how this decision redefines justice and heals a fractured system for crime victims in Uganda.

Prior to June 2026, Section 11(2) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act acted as an absolute barrier to completing criminal trials. If an investigating officer or security agent tortured a suspect, the trial court had to throw the entire case out.
While among others the  Parliament intended this law to punish rogue law enforcement agents, the practical result was devastating for crime victims. A perpetrator of aggravated defilement, murder, or massive financial fraud could walk free simply because a police officer violated procedural laws during arrest. The Faruku Muhamed decision corrected this imbalance through three critical determinations:
• Separation of Evidence: Courts must now isolate untainted evidence from any evidence obtained through human rights violations. It's globally appreciated too, as the exclusionary rule see Art 15 of  convention against torture read together with section 24 of Evidence Act, it is also embraced By the prohibition and prevention of torture act of uganda and case law.
• Preservation of the Main Trial: Trials can no longer be automatically nullified before a full hearing on the original criminal charges is completed. This aligns with the entrenched guarantee of a right of a fair hearing. The trial proceeds on the basis of evidence independent of torture. Court also clarified that because court is given wide discretion by virtue of nullification of the vexed provisions, the court can also dismiss the criminal case if independent evidence to sustain the charge is insufficient. 
• Alternative Sanctions: Law enforcement officers who violate human rights face individual accountability, rather than having the state drop the case against the criminal. beyond compensation the statutes linked to torture among others ordain imprisonment of the public officers who may offend the entrenched rights under Article 44. 
• Alternative Sanctions: Law enforcement officers who violate human rights face individual accountability, rather than having the state drop the case against the criminal.

For too long, the victims of Uganda’s most heinous crimes were forced to bear a double burden—first of the crime itself, and second of a procedural loophole that allowed perpetrators to walk free due to law enforcement errors. The decision in Faruku Muhamed fundamentally restores the victim's rightful place in the courtroom. By ensuring trials are preserved through independent evidence while directly penalizing rogue officers, the Court has paved the way for a more compassionate, balanced, and reliable justice system—one where closure is finally attainable for those who have suffered the most.

Editor's Note:
This article was compiled by 
 Faruku Muhamed Luvuma—Lead petitioner