Over the last five years, the courts of Uganda have spoken consistently, deliberately, and with remarkable clarity in favour of arbitration as a pillar of modern dispute resolution. From the boardrooms of Kampala to the floors of the Commercial Court, a quiet revolution has been underway, and the judgments speak for themselves.

This post traces that journey through the cases that have shaped Uganda’s arbitration jurisprudence between 2020 and 2025 examining how the bench has interpreted, protected, and advanced the principles that make arbitration work.

History of Arbitration in Uganda

Long before Uganda’s Commercial Court issued its first arbitration ruling, Ugandans were resolving disputes the traditional way through leaders and elders whose word carried the weight of community trust. That spirit of consensual, non-adversarial resolution never truly disappeared. It simply needed a modern framework.

The first formal step came in 1930 with the Arbitration Act. Decades later, the 1995 Constitution https://ulii.org/en/akn/ug/act/statute/1995/constitution/eng@2023-12-31 guided by the Odoki Commission embedded the values of arbitration into Uganda’s legal DNA under Article 126(2), calling for justice without delay, reconciliation, and the avoidance of undue technicalities. Parliament followed with a suite of laws to give these values teeth: The Judicature Act, the Civil Procedure Rules (S.I 71 1), and most importantly, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (ACA) a statute that draws from the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration and places party autonomy at its very heart.

The Principles the Courts Have Consistently Upheld

1.  Party Autonomy Reigns Supreme

If there is one thread that runs through every major arbitration ruling in this period, it is this: the parties are in control. Section 9 of the ACA restricts court intervention in arbitration proceedings, and the courts have honored that restriction faithfully. In Lakeside Dairy Limited v International Centre for Arbitration and Mediation Kampala (Misc. Cause 21 of 2021) https://tinyurl.com/3cjyujh8, the court affirmed that parties have near unfettered autonomy in choosing when to arbitrate, how many arbitrators to appoint, where the arbitration sits, and what procedure governs it. The court is not there to second guess those choices it is there to respect them.

2.  The Arbitration Agreement: Meaning, Construction, and Effect

An arbitration agreement is the engine of the entire process without it, there is no arbitration. The courts have carefully defined and protected this agreement in a string of decisions.

In Security Group Uganda Limited v Finasi Ishu Construction SPV Ltd (Civil Suit No. 829 of 2023), the court treated an arbitration clause as a written submission one that must be construed according to its own language and in the light of the surrounding circumstances. The principle of separability (Section 3(4) of the ACA) was reinforced: an arbitration clause lives its own life, independent of the broader contract that contains it.

In MSS Xsabo Power Ltd & 4 Others v Great Lakes Energy Company NV (Arbitration Causes No. 0075 of 2023 and 0014 of 2024), the court articulated four hallmarks of a valid arbitration clause: it must be mandatory, it must exclude (or at least defer) court intervention, it must empower the arbitrators to resolve disputes, and it must provide a procedure leading efficiently to an enforceable award. The court added that rational commercial parties who agree to arbitrate almost certainly intend all disputes from their relationship to be resolved in the same forum and the clause should be construed accordingly.

What about badly drafted clauses? In Lakeside Dairy, the court tackled the vexed question of “pathological” arbitration clauses those so defective that they frustrate the appointment of a tribunal or create jurisdictional chaos. The principle is clear: unless a clause is so incurably flawed that it cannot function as an arbitration clause at all, courts will strain to give it effect. Only where it is truly impossible to constitute an arbitral tribunal will the court step in.

3.  Kompetenz Kompetenz: The Tribunal Judges Its Own Jurisdiction

One of the most significant doctrinal developments in this period is the courts’ robust endorsement of the Kompetenz Kompetenz doctrine the principle that an arbitral tribunal has the power to rule on its own jurisdiction. Grounded in Section 16 of the ACA and affirmed in Lakeside Dairy, this doctrine prevents parties from derailing arbitration proceedings with premature jurisdictional challenges in court. The tribunal decides first; judicial oversight comes later, and only within the narrow grounds permitted by the Act.

4.  Courts Stay in Their Lane: The Limited Intervention Principle

Perhaps the most striking theme of the 2020–2025 period is the courts’ disciplined restraint. Section 9 of the ACA is clear: courts shall not intervene except where the Act expressly permits. The cases confirm that judicial involvement is confined to three narrow channels procedural steps the tribunal cannot enforce (such as witness summonses or stays of parallel litigation), interim measures to preserve the status quo, and post award enforcement or challenge proceedings. In Simba Properties Investment Co. Ltd & 5 Others v Vantage Mezzanine Fund (Civil Application No. 231 of 2025), the court reinforced this framework, refusing to be drawn into the substantive merits of an ongoing arbitration.

Enforcing the Award: Where the Court’s Support Truly Shows

Awards Are Final and the Courts Mean It

One of arbitration’s core promises is finality. In Lakeside Dairy, the court confirmed that an arbitral award is binding on the parties, and that the substantive issues decided by the arbitrator are simply not reviewable by courts. There is no appeal on the merits. Recourse to court under Section 34 of the ACA is strictly limited to an application to set aside the award on specific, narrow grounds.

In Aya Investment (U) Limited v Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Ltd (Civil Application No. 410 of 2023), the court went further, dismissing an application to stay execution of an arbitral award. Citing the Supreme Court in Babcon Uganda Limited v Mbale Resort Hotel Ltd, the court held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain such a stay the Act does not provide for it, and the court would not read in a power that Parliament had deliberately withheld.

Partial Awards Are Immediately Enforceable

In Great Lakes Energy Company NV v MSS Xsabo Power Limited (Arbitration Causes 2 and 5 of 2023), the court addressed a question that had lingered in Uganda’s arbitration practice: can a partial award be enforced before all disputes are resolved? The answer was an unequivocal yes. A partial award one that definitively resolves a severable issue or claim is treated as a final award for enforcement purposes under Section 36 of the ACA. This is a commercially significant ruling: it means parties who prevail on one issue need not wait for the entirety of the proceedings to collect.

Time Is of the Essence: The 30 Day Rule

Finality has a procedural counterpart: strict time limits. In National Housing and Construction Company Limited v Ambitious Construction Company Limited (Misc Cause No. 54 of 2023), the court addressed when the 30-day window to apply to set aside an award begins to run. The answer consistent with how judgments are treated is the date the award is signed and delivered, not the date a party physically collects it. The applicant in that case missed the deadline by a single day, filing on 9 June 2023 when the award had been delivered on 9 May 2023. The application was struck out. The court’s message was unambiguous: arbitration’s promise of finality cannot be diluted by procedural laxity.

Public Policy: A Narrow Exception, Not a Loophole

One of the most important contributions of this period’s jurisprudence is the court’s careful treatment of the public policy ground for setting aside awards. In MSS Xsabo Power Ltd, the court rejected the notion that public policy could become a backdoor for merits review. Public policy, the court held, is to be interpreted narrowly an award will only be set aside on this ground where it conflicts with Uganda’s Constitution or written law, is inimical to national interests such as security or economic prosperity, or is tainted by corruption or fraud. A mere disagreement with the outcome does not come close.

The Seat Matters: Supervisory Jurisdiction and Award Challenges

For those engaged in international commercial arbitration seated in Uganda, the courts’ position on supervisory jurisdiction is clear and reassuring. In Great Lakes Energy, Justice Stephen Mubiru affirmed that the courts of the seat of arbitration hold exclusive supervisory jurisdiction over the proceedings, including any challenge to the award. A choice of seat is treated as a choice of forum for remedies. This brings Uganda’s approach in line with international best practice and gives foreign parties confidence that choosing Kampala as a seat is a choice the courts will honour.

What This Means for Businesses and Legal Practitioners

Taken together, the decisions of Uganda’s courts from 2020 to 2025 paint a coherent and encouraging picture. The bench is not merely tolerating arbitration it is actively enabling it. The consistent themes are: respect party choices, enforce agreements broadly, uphold awards firmly, intervene only when the Act permits, and protect finality with strict procedural discipline.

For businesses operating in Uganda whether in energy, construction, real estate, or finance this jurisprudence carries a practical message: arbitration clauses in your contracts will be taken seriously, your awards will be enforced, and the courts will not undermine the process you chose. Draft your clauses carefully, respect your deadlines, and trust the system.

For legal practitioners, the body of case law reviewed here is not just persuasive it is a road map. Understanding how courts approach arbitration agreements, jurisdictional challenges, enforcement, and public policy is now essential practice knowledge for any commercial lawyer in Uganda.

Cases Reviewed

1. Lakeside Dairy Limited v International Centre for Arbitration and Mediation Kampala and Another (Misc Cause 21 of 2021) [2021] UGCommC 181 (22 October 2021)
2. Simba Properties Investment Co. Ltd & 5 Ors v Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership & Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Proprietary Ltd, Civil Application No. 231 of 2025
3. Great Lakes Energy Company NV v MSS Xsabo Power Limited and Others (Arbitration Causes 2 of 2023 & 5 of 2023) [2020] UGCommC 165 (24 April 2020)
4. National Housing and Construction Company Limited v Ambitious Construction Company Limited, Miscellaneous Cause No. 54 of 2023
5. Aya Investment (U) Limited v Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Ltd, Civil Application No. 410 (542) of 2023
6. Security Group Uganda Limited v Finasi Ishu Construction SPV Ltd, Civil Suit No. 829 of 2023
7. MSS Xsabo Power Ltd & 4 Others v Great Lakes Energy Company NV, Arbitration Causes No. 0075 of 2023 and 0014 of 2024

1. Background

On 1 April 2026, the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development tabled proposed tax changes for the financial year 2026/2027 before the Parliament of Uganda. If passed into law and assented to by the President, the changes take effect on 1 July 2026. The proposals span eight legislative instruments: The Income Tax (Amendment) Bill 2026; the Value Added Tax (Amendment) Bill 2026; the Excise Duty (Amendment) Bill 2026; the Tax Procedures Code (Amendment) Bill 2026; the Stamp Duty (Amendment) Bill 2026; the Lotteries and Gaming (Amendment) Bill 2026; the External Trade (Amendment) Bill 2026; and the Traffic and Road Safety (Amendment) Bill 2026.

This opinion analyses each set of proposed amendments, setting out the current legal position, the proposed change, and commentary on the likely legal, practical, and fiscal implications. Several proposals represent direct legislative responses to Tax Appeals Tribunal (TAT) jurisprudence, reflecting the growing influence of case law on Uganda’s tax policy landscape.

A. Income Tax Act Proposed Amendments

1. Definition of ‘Royalty’  Software (s.2 ITA; Clauses 2 & 10)

Current Law: The definition of ‘royalty’ under the ITA does not expressly include software. Payments for software access risked being characterised as digital services and taxed at the 5% Digital Services Tax rate.

Proposed Change: Software is expressly included in the definition of ‘royalty’. Income attributable to royalties shall not be taxed as digital services but shall instead be subject to a 15% withholding tax on gross payments.

2. Interest Limitation Rules & EBITDA (s.25(3) ITA; Clause 6)

Current Law: Interest expense deduction for group companies is capped at 30% of EBITDA. ‘Group’ was broadly defined (common ownership ≥51%), enabling URA to apply the limitation to companies sharing ownership even with dormant entities. Brought-forward losses were included in EBITDA, overstating disallowed interest.

Proposed Change: A ‘group’ is redefined to exclude dormant members. A ‘dormant company’ is defined as an entity with no business operations and no accounting transactions in a year of income. Brought-forward losses are excluded from the Tax EBITDA computation.

Opinion & Commentary: Addresses multiple TAT decisions, including Techno Three Ltd v URA (TAT No. 9/2025) and Sai Office Supplies v URA (TAT No. 12/2024). Provides clarity and fairness. However, the definition of ‘dormant’ requires refinement   routine statutory filings (e.g., URSB annual return fees) should not disqualify an entity. Further alignment with OECD BEPS Action 4 is recommended: apply limitation to net rather than gross interest, and exclude local group companies.

3. Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) (s.36 ITA; Clause 8)

Current Law: Taxpayers with carry-forward losses paid no corporate income tax. Full loss carry-forward was permitted for 7 years; thereafter a 50% deduction applied with no further tax consequence.

Proposed Change: Companies with assessed tax losses for more than 7 consecutive years must pay the higher of: (a) regular corporate income tax of 30% of chargeable income, or (b) an AMT of 0.5% of gross income   even where chargeable income is nil.

Opinion & Commentary: This is a controversial measure and Parliament’s second attempt, having rejected an equivalent provision in the ITA Amendment Bill 2020. It departs from the foundational principle of taxing profits. Capital-intensive and cyclical sectors   mining, oil & gas, and infrastructure   legitimately carry extended losses. The ITA already contains anti-avoidance and transfer pricing provisions. This measure risks worsening the position of genuinely struggling businesses, with possible downstream loss of PAYE and VAT revenue.

4. Withholding Tax on Non-Business Asset Disposals (s.130 ITA; Clauses 3 & 13)

Current Law: WHT under s.130 ITA applied only to: (a) purchase of an asset from a nonresident, and (b) purchase of a business asset. Disposal of non-business assets was not a taxable event for WHT purposes.

Proposed Change: Disposal of non-business assets is now classified as taxable ‘property income’. A 6% WHT (not a final tax) is imposed on the purchaser, to be remitted to URA. The seller must still file a return and settle any additional tax arising.

Opinion & Commentary: An overreach. The Bill does not define ‘non-business asset’ nor provide exceptions. This could capture sales of personal vehicles, household items, personal land, and shares traded on the stock exchange. TAT precedent in Chandaria Foundation v URA (TAT No. 331/2024) and Dr. Amos Nzeyi v URA (TAT No. 5/2024) confirms that non-business disposals are not profit-motivated. Enforcement and compliance risks are significant.

5. Taxation of Foreign-Sourced Income (New s.150A ITA; Clause 18)

Current Law: Resident individuals were required to declare worldwide income to URA, but foreign-sourced income was effectively subjected to higher rates than equivalent Uganda-sourced income under the existing legislative structure.

Proposed Change: A new s.150A is inserted: income derived by a resident individual from a foreign source shall be taxed at the same rate applicable to the equivalent Uganda-sourced income type. URA gains enhanced visibility via automatic exchange of information (AEOI) protocols.

Opinion & Commentary: A welcome and equity-restoring measure that creates parity and is expected to encourage voluntary compliance. Residents who previously under-declared foreign income should note increased URA scrutiny following the activation of AEOI protocols.

6. Revised Individual Income Tax Bands (Clause 20)

Current Law: Tax-free threshold: UGX 235,000/month. Bands: 10% (235K–335K); 20% (335K–410K); 30% (410K–10M); 40% (above 10M).

Proposed Change: Revised bands: 0%: 0–335,000; 20%: 335,000–410,000; 25%: 410,000–485,000; 30%: 485,000–10,000,000; 40%: above 10,000,000.

Opinion & Commentary: A modest adjustment to address cost-of-living increases since 2012 (CPI rose approximately 74% by February 2026). However, an inflation-adjusted analysis shows the new free threshold of UGX 335,000 should ideally be UGX 408,384, and the 40% bracket threshold should be approximately UGX 17.4 million. The adjustment is a step in the right direction but falls significantly short of full inflationary correction.

7. WHT on Gaming & Betting Winnings (s.131 ITA; Clause 14)

Current Law: No WHT applied on gaming winnings   the tax was repealed in 2023 following Fortuna Ltd v URA (TAT No. 132/2020), which disputed the interpretation of ‘winning’ and the point of collection.

Proposed Change: A 15% WHT is reinstated on ‘winnings’, defined as the difference between the payout and the amount staked on the game or bet.

Opinion & Commentary: The new definition of ‘winnings’ as the net gain (payout minus stake) resolves the ambiguity identified in Fortuna and aligns with Massalia SMC Ltd v URA (TAT No. 251/2024). A pragmatic, jurisprudence-driven amendment.

8. WHT on Telecom Commissions (s.133 ITA; Clause 15)

Current Law: 10% WHT applied to commissions paid to airtime and mobile money agents only. Commissions for data distribution and other telecommunications services were outside the WHT net.

Proposed Change: WHT is broadened to all commissions paid by telecom service providers for retail services, mobile network services, and mobile money   including data agents. For individual agents, this WHT constitutes a final tax.

Opinion & Commentary: A sensible broadening of the tax base. However, the terms ‘telecommunication retail services’ and ‘mobile network services’ are broad and could unintentionally capture parties outside the intended target. Clear definitional boundaries are recommended before enactment.

9. WHT on Public Entertainers (Clause 16)

Current Law: WHT applied to designated agents, professionals, and insurance/advertising/mobile money commissions. Payments to resident public entertainers were not subject to WHT (nonresidents: 15% WHT).

Proposed Change: A new 6% WHT is imposed on gross payments to public entertainers (resident or otherwise), payable by the person making the payment   principally promoters.

Opinion & Commentary: Expands the tax base and brings resident entertainers within a withholding framework. Promoters must now ensure compliance or risk WHT liability. A clear statutory definition of ‘public entertainer’ is needed for consistent application.

10. Transfer Pricing   Arm’s Length Obligation (New s.115A ITA; Clause 11)

Current Law: Related-party transactions were expected to follow the arm’s length principle under Transfer Pricing Regulations and URA Practice Notes, but no explicit legislative obligation existed in the primary Act.

Proposed Change: A new s.115A is inserted, expressly obligating taxpayers in controlled transactions to prove compliance with the arm’s length principle.

Opinion & Commentary: Effectively a codification and emphasis of an existing obligation. Signals intensified URA focus on transfer pricing. Multinationals and local related-party entities should immediately review TP documentation and assess exposure to adjustments and penalties for non-compliance.

11. Tourism Hotel Tax Exemption (s.21 ITA; Clause 4)

Current Law: No income tax holiday existed for tourism hotel developers.

Proposed Change: An income tax exemption is granted to developers of qualifying tourism hotels/facilities: minimum investment of USD 10 million (foreign) or USD 5 million (citizen); at least 70% local raw materials; at least 70% citizen employees earning at least 70% of the total wage bill.

Opinion & Commentary: Supports Uganda’s tourism growth strategy. However, unlike other ITA holidays (typically subject to 10-year limits), this exemption is open-ended   which may be unintentional and should be clarified. The investment thresholds may also exclude smaller tourism projects that nonetheless support the ecosystem.

B. Value Added Tax Act   Proposed Amendments

1. VAT Registration Threshold (s.7(2) VAT Act; Clause 3)

Current Law: Annual turnover threshold for compulsory VAT registration: UGX 150 million (or UGX 37.5 million per quarter).

Proposed Change: Threshold raised to UGX 250 million annually. Businesses below this threshold have no obligation to register or charge VAT.

Opinion & Commentary: Long overdue relief for small businesses that bore disproportionate compliance costs while contributing minimally to VAT revenue. Expected to result in de-registration of many smaller taxpayers, freeing URA resources to focus on larger taxpayers and improve the VAT register’s productivity.

2. Input VAT Credit   Hotel/Tourism Developers (s.28(3) VAT Act; Clause 4)

Current Law: Input tax credit was available for goods on hand at the VAT registration date, incurred within 6 months (or 12 months for manufacturers).

Proposed Change: Developers of qualifying hotels/tourism facilities (USD 10 million foreign / USD 5 million citizen) may claim input VAT on specified construction materials, civil works, machinery, and fittings incurred not more than 2 years prior to commissioning.

Opinion & Commentary: Reduces the effective VAT cost of hotel development. However: (a) the USD investment threshold excludes smaller tourism projects; (b) the 2-year window may be insufficient for projects experiencing delays   a 3-year window is recommended; and (c) investors with USD 8 million+ may already qualify for VAT exemption under Schedule 3 of the VAT Act.

2. VAT Withholding   EFRIS Exemption (Clause 2)

Current Law: Designated taxpayers were required to withhold VAT on all taxable supplies unless the supplier was expressly exempt.

Proposed Change: The VAT withholding obligation is restricted to non-EFRIS transactions: it applies where no e-invoice/e-receipt is issued by a VAT-registered vendor, or where an unregistered vendor’s supply exceeds one quarter of the VAT registration threshold and no EFRIS document is issued.

Opinion & Commentary: A well-designed compliance incentive   suppliers who comply with EFRIS are rewarded with improved cash flow, as no VAT is withheld at source. Designated withholding agents must review procurement processes and update their systems accordingly.

3.Input VAT Disallowed on Imported Software (s.28 VAT Act; Clause 4)

Current Law: Input tax incurred at Customs on imported software was claimable where the software was for business use.

Proposed Change: Input VAT credit on imported software declared at Customs is disallowed. This represents an effective cost increase of at least 18% on physical software imports.

Opinion & Commentary: A revenue measure that fails to consider wider economic impact. Businesses accessing software digitally   the majority   already bear 18% VAT as an imported service. This amendment targets the smaller category of physical-media software imports. It discourages technology adoption and risks deepening the digital divide and reducing Uganda’s regional competitiveness.

4. EFRIS Consumer Reward (Clause 7)

Current Law: Non-VAT registered persons who purchased from VAT-registered suppliers could claim a 5% refund on qualifying purchases exceeding UGX 5 million within 30 consecutive days.

Proposed Change: The qualifying threshold is lowered to UGX 2 million within 30 days. The 5% VAT refund incentive is retained.

Opinion & Commentary: Expands EFRIS adoption by broadening the incentive to smaller-value transactions. Expected to strengthen compliance culture and improve VAT accountability across more consumer segments.

5. VAT Exemption   Nuclear Energy Supplies (Third Schedule; Clause 9)

Current Law: The VAT exemption for energy project contractors/subcontractors applied to hydro, solar, geothermal, biogas, and wind energy projects.

Proposed Change: The exemption is extended to nuclear energy project supplies.

Opinion & Commentary: Aligns with the Government’s nuclear energy programme (developed with Korean Government support). Reduces input costs for project developers. Note: biomass energy projects remain uncovered   an omission that should be addressed in subsequent amendments.

C. Stamp Duty Act   Proposed Amendments

1. Stamp Duty on Transfers (Clause 4)

Current Law: Stamp duty on transfers of land and shares (excluding motor vehicles) was 1.5% of consideration or market value.

Proposed Change: Rate increased to 3% of total value   a 100% increase.

Opinion & Commentary: An extreme increase that will materially raise the cost of property and share transactions in Uganda, with the real estate sector bearing the greatest burden. High transaction taxes tend to incentivise evasion and artificial structuring. A moderate increase to 2% would be more defensible.

2. Stamp Duty on Motor Vehicle Registration/Transfer (Clause 4)

Current Law: No stamp duty applied to motor vehicle or motorcycle registration or transfer. Insurance of motor vehicles attracted stamp duty of UGX 35,000 per policy.

Proposed Change: New stamp duty imposed: motorcycles/tricycles/quadricycles   UGX 50,000; all other motor vehicles   UGX 200,000.

Opinion & Commentary: Targets an already heavily taxed sector. Combined with the proposed UGX 500,000 excise duty at first motorcycle registration, the total first-registration tax burden on a motorcycle rises to UGX 550,000   a significant cost for an asset central to livelihoods for millions of Ugandans. An anomaly also arises: insured vehicles will now bear both the new stamp duty and the existing UGX 35,000 insurance policy stamp duty.

3. Monthly Stamp Duty Returns   Financial Institutions (s.7 Stamp Duty Act; Clause 2)

Current Law: The filing obligation under s.7 applied to insurance/takaful businesses only.

Proposed Change: The obligation is extended to all financial services entities (banks, MFIs, lenders), with monthly returns required. Penalty for default: 2% per month of duty payable.

Opinion & Commentary: Provides URA with systematic visibility over stamp duty-liable transactions in the financial sector. Financial institutions should review compliance frameworks and ensure adequate reporting systems. The law should further specify which entities fall within ‘financial services’ to avoid ambiguity.

D. Excise Duty Act   Proposed Amendments

1. Imported Spirits (Item 3)

Current Law: Excise duty on imported undenatured spirits (<80% ABV): 80% or UGX 1,700 per litre, whichever is higher.

Proposed Change: Increased to 80% or UGX 3,500 per litre   a 105.9% per-litre rate increase.

Opinion & Commentary: Targets a luxury consumption category with relatively price-inelastic demand. However, exorbitant increases risk encouraging smuggling and illicit trade, ultimately reducing total revenue. Careful monitoring of border compliance is warranted.

2. Cement & Construction Materials (Item 7)

Current Law: UGX 500 per 50kg on cement, adhesives, grout, white cement, and lime.

Proposed Change: Doubled to UGX 1,000 per 50kg.

Opinion & Commentary: A 100% increase that will directly raise construction costs across housing, infrastructure, and public works. Combined with 18% VAT on these materials, the effective burden is significant. This will adversely affect housing affordability and government contract costs.

3. Fuel   Motor Spirit & Gas Oil (Item 8)

Current Law: Motor spirit: UGX 1,550 per litre. Gas oil: UGX 1,230 per litre.

Proposed Change: Motor spirit: UGX 1,750 per litre (+12.9%). Gas oil: UGX 1,430 per litre (+16.3%).

Opinion & Commentary: Fuel duties carry economy-wide inflationary effects. Given current global oil supply disruptions and rising prices, this is a particularly inopportune moment for further increases. The measure risks amplifying inflation and transportation costs across all sectors.

4. Sugar (Item 9)

Current Law: UGX 100 per kg on cane or beet sugar and chemically pure sucrose.

Proposed Change: Increased to UGX 300 per kg   a 200% increase.

Opinion & Commentary: Excessive. Sugar is a staple commodity consumed across all income brackets. This increase will have visible price impacts for consumers and manufacturers alike. A more moderate adjustment would be appropriate.

5. Single-Use Plastics (Item 11)

Current Law: Excise duty of 2.5% or USD 70 per ton on sacks and bags (kavera) of polymers of ethylene. Other single-use items (cups, plates, straws) were not covered.

Proposed Change: Extended to all single-use plastics. Rate increased to 25% or USD 1,500 per ton   an increase of over 2,042%.

Opinion & Commentary: While framed as an environmental tax, the increase is extreme. At this rate, a prohibition may be a more rational policy instrument than taxation. There is no clear pathway for affected businesses to transition to alternatives without significant disruption to jobs and supply chains.

6. Cooking Oil & Cooking Fat (Items 18 & 29)

Current Law: Cooking oil: UGX 200 per litre. No duty on cooking fat.

Proposed Change: Cooking oil doubled to UGX 400 per litre. A new duty of UGX 500 per litre or kg is imposed on cooking fat (margarine and trans fatty acids).

Opinion & Commentary: Both are household essentials and key inputs for the hospitality and food manufacturing sectors. The increases will contribute to cost-of-living pressures and reduce margins for restaurants, bakeries, and caterers.

7. Paints, Varnishes & Lacquers (Item 28)

Current Law: No excise duty on paints, varnishes, or lacquers.

Proposed Change: New duty introduced: locally manufactured   3% or UGX 50 per litre/kg (whichever is higher); imported   10% or UGX 2,000 per litre/kg (whichever is higher).

Opinion & Commentary: The differential rate (3% local vs. 10% imported) incentivises domestic manufacturing. However, the measure increases construction costs and will be passed on to tenants and home buyers. Imported paints are predominantly used in premium construction, making the 10% rate relatively targeted.

E. Tax Procedures Code Act   Proposed Amendments

1. Penalty Reduction   Unstamped Goods (s.21(3) TPCA; Clause 2)

Current Law: Penalty for possession of unstamped goods: double the tax due OR 2,500 currency points (UGX 50 million)   widely regarded as disproportionate.

Proposed Change: Penalty reduced to double the tax due OR 100 currency points (UGX 2 million), whichever is higher.

Opinion & Commentary: A proportionality reform that reduces the risk of over-enforcement on businesses caught with technically non-compliant goods. Businesses in excisable goods sectors should nonetheless ensure tax stamps are properly affixed.

2. Remission of Pre-2016 Tax Arrears (Clause 3)

Current Law: Tax arrears arising before 30 June 2016 remained on taxpayer ledgers and were subject to enforcement   including principal tax, penalties, and interest.

Proposed Change: All principal tax arrears outstanding as at 30 June 2016 and still unpaid as at 1 July 2026 shall be written off.

Opinion & Commentary: Pragmatic debt management. Carrying decade-old liabilities distorts tax ledger performance, creates administrative burden, and imposes phantom liabilities on taxpayers. A welcome measure for those with long-standing historical debts.

3. EFRIS Penalty Amendment (s.93 TPCA; Clause 4)

Current Law: Penalty for failure to use EFRIS/EFD or issue an e-invoice/e-receipt: double the tax due on goods or services.

Proposed Change: Revised to double the tax due OR UGX 200,000, whichever is higher   providing a workable floor penalty for smaller transactions.

Opinion & Commentary: Drives EFRIS compliance with a proportionate enforcement mechanism. Businesses in newly gazetted EFRIS sectors should prioritise compliance to avoid the revised penalties.

F. External Trade Act   Proposed Amendments

1. Exemption of Essential Medicines & Agricultural Inputs (ss.3A & 3B External Trade Act; Clause 2)

Current Law: An infrastructure levy of 1.5% and an import declaration fee of 1% applied to all imported goods, including vaccines, medicines, medical supplies, pesticides, and insecticides.

Proposed Change: Vaccines, medicines, medical supplies, pesticides, rodenticides, acaricides, and insecticides are exempted from both the infrastructure levy and the import declaration fee.

Opinion & Commentary: An important public health and food security measure. The Ministry of Health raised concerns that these levies contributed to stock-outs of critical healthcare products. This will reduce landed costs for pharmaceutical and agro-input importers. Importers should monitor the effective date carefully.

2. Surcharge on Used Clothing Imports (s.3 External Trade Act; Clause 4)

Current Law: A 15% surcharge applied to used clothing imports   intended to protect the domestic textile industry but insufficient to deter large-scale imports.

Proposed Change: Surcharge doubled to 30% of CIF value.

Opinion & Commentary: Signals the Government’s commitment to discouraging Mulumba imports and supporting local textile manufacturing. However, consumers who rely on affordable second-hand clothing   particularly lower-income households   will bear the direct cost impact of this policy shift.

3. Environmental Levy on Worn Clothing (External Trade Act; Clause 3)

Current Law: No environmental levy was specifically targeted at worn/second-hand articles.

Proposed Change: A new environmental levy of 30% of CIF value is imposed on worn clothing and other worn articles.

Opinion & Commentary: Stacked on top of the increased surcharge, worn clothing imports now face a combined additional burden of 60% (30% surcharge + 30% environmental levy). This effectively renders mass-market Mulumba imports commercially unviable   a de facto prohibition through taxation. The Government should clarify whether this is the intended policy outcome.

G. Traffic & Road Safety Act   Proposed Amendments

1. Maximum Vehicle Age for Import (s.15 Traffic & Road Safety Act; Clause 2)

Current Law: Vehicles up to 15 years old from the year of manufacture could be imported. An environmental levy of 50% of CIF value applied uniformly to vehicles 9 years or older.

Proposed Change: Maximum permissible age reduced to 13 years. A graduated environmental levy applies: 9 years   20%; 10 years   30%; 11 years   40%; 12 years   50%; 13 years   unchanged. Transition provision: vehicles in transit before commencement and arriving by 31 December 2026 are unaffected.

Opinion & Commentary: A dual environmental and fleet-modernisation policy. Reducing the maximum import age from 15 to 13 years will raise average vehicle prices, as newer used vehicles command higher premiums. The graduated levy is more equitable than the previous flat rate. The transition provision for in-transit vehicles is practical and should be noted by importers.

H. Lotteries and Gaming Act   Proposed Amendments

1. Betting & Gaming Tax Rate (Fourth Schedule, Lotteries & Gaming Act)

Current Law: Betting activity: 20% of total amounts staked less payouts. Gaming activity: 30% of total amounts staked less payouts.

Proposed Change: Both betting and gaming activities are to be taxed at 30% of total amounts staked less payouts for the filing period.

Opinion & Commentary: Eliminates the differential treatment between betting and gaming. Effectively increases the tax burden on betting operators by 50%. Operators should expect reduced profit margins and may adjust odds or pricing. Long-term player participation could be affected. The ITA also introduces a 15% WHT on individual winnings (as defined above), compounding the overall tax burden on the sector.

2. Conclusion

The FY 2026/2027 tax proposals reflect a dual policy objective: expanding the tax base and increasing revenue to finance the national budget, while selectively incentivizing strategic sectors (tourism, energy, and agriculture). Taken in their totality, 50 legislative changes are proposed across 8 Acts.

Notable positives include: the raise of the VAT registration threshold; the tourism hotel tax holiday; the EFRIS compliance incentive framework; the remission of pre 2016 tax arrears; the extension of bad debt deductions to MFIs; the clarification of the EBITDA/group interest limitation rules; and the exemption of essential medicines from trade levies.

Areas of concern include: the Alternative Minimum Tax on loss making companies; the non-business asset disposal tax (undefined scope); the doubling of stamp duty on transfers; the extreme excise duty increases on plastics and sugar; the stacked levies on used clothing; and the fuel duty increase given the global supply environment. Several of these proposals risk incentivizing avoidance, reducing investment, and increasing the cost of living without proportionate revenue gains.

Taxpayers across all sectors   individual, corporate, and institutional   should conduct proactive compliance reviews to identify amendments affecting their specific circumstances and ensure timely adaptation before the 1 July 2026 effective date.

Rule 3 of the 2013 Rules defines mediation as the process by which a neutral third person facilitates communication between parties to a dispute and assists them in reaching a mutually agreed resolution. The 2026 Rules under Rule 4 retain this definition, describing mediation as a non-adversarial process in which a mediator encourages and facilitates the resolution of a dispute between parties.

Principles Governing Mediation

1. Self-Determination

Self-determination is a foundational principle of mediation, expressly anchored in Rule 16(1) of the 2013 Rules, which provides that where parties resolve some or all issues subject to mediation, they shall enter into an agreement setting out the matters on which consensus has been reached. This underscores a critical distinction between mediation and adjudicative processes: while the mediator’s primary role is to facilitate communication and assist parties in identifying common ground, the authority to determine the outcome rests exclusively with the parties themselves. Any agreement reached is therefore a product of mutual consent rather than external compulsion. The 2026 Rules reinforce this principle under the Code of Conduct in Schedule 2, which expressly provides that a mediator shall conduct the mediation process in accordance with the principle of party self-determination, ensuring that all participating parties make informed decisions voluntarily and free from any form of coercion or undue influence, and that the authority for decision making rests with the parties and not the mediator.

2. Confidentiality and Privilege

Rule 18 of the 2013 Rules prohibits both the mediator and parties from disclosing any information obtained during mediation unless required by law or the parties consent in writing, thereby encouraging candid engagement without fear that disclosures will be used against them in subsequent proceedings. This principle is however not absolute, as Rule 18(2) excepts information ordinarily required for disclosure in the main suit or related applications, ensuring confidentiality is not weaponized to suppress legitimately available evidence. Further, Rule 18(3) introduces the element of privilege by prohibiting any party from compelling the mediator or any officer or representative of CADER to testify in any litigation related to the mediation, thus safeguarding the mediator’s neutrality and preserving the integrity of the entire mediation process. The 2026 Rules significantly expand this principle under Rule 30, which introduces a formal Confidentiality and Inadmissibility Agreement that all participants must sign before mediation commences. Rule 30 further provides that all proceedings, documents, statements, admissions, views, and proposals made during mediation are confidential and inadmissible in any judicial or arbitral proceedings. Notably, the 2026 Rules introduce mandatory disclosure exceptions where information relates to child abuse, defilement, domestic violence, sexual offences, or any related criminal purpose, ensuring that confidentiality cannot shield ongoing harm or illegality.

3. Fairness and Impartiality

Fairness and impartiality are fundamental principles governing the conduct of a mediator, as established under Guideline 3 of Schedule 2 of the 2013 Rules, which requires the mediator to act fairly towards all parties, remain free from bias, and refrain from discriminating against any party. Where a mediator identifies an abuse of the mediation process or a power imbalance likely to undermine a mutually acceptable resolution, it becomes the mediator’s responsibility to redress that imbalance and ensure the process is conducted on an equitable footing for all parties involved. The 2026 Rules reinforce this under the Code of Conduct in Schedule 2, which defines impartiality as freedom from manifestations of favoritism or bias toward one party over another in word, action or omission, and further prohibits a mediator from accepting gifts, favors, loans or items of value that could compromise their actual or perceived impartiality

4. Informed Consent

Informed consent is governed by Guideline 4 of Schedule 2 of the 2013 Rules, which obligates the mediator to disclose to the parties any matter that could constitute a conflict of interest, whether apparent, potential, or actual, and to make such disclosure as soon as the conflict arises, whether before or during mediation. Critically, where a conflict of interest exists, the mediator shall neither commence nor continue acting in the mediation unless all parties specifically acknowledge the disclosure and consent in writing, thereby ensuring that the parties’ participation in the process is fully informed and voluntarily rendered. The 2026 Rules entrench this principle under Rules 14(4) and 14(5), which impose the same obligation on mediators, and go further under the Code of Conduct to specify the categories of information that must be disclosed, including having previously acted for any of the parties, having a financial interest in the outcome, or possessing confidential information about any of the parties.

See the schedule 2 for other principles

The Process of Mediation

• Submission to Mediation

The mediation process is initiated at the point of filing, where Rule 5 of the 2013 Rules requires parties to submit a case summary. It is however important to note that parties may submit to mediation at any stage of the court process, making it a flexible mechanism accessible throughout the life of a suit. The 2026 Rules under Rule 12 similarly provide that parties to any civil matter may voluntarily and by mutual consent refer their dispute for mediation at any stage before the final determination of the suit, reinforcing the consensual and flexible character of the process.

• Assignment of a Mediator

Upon submission, the Court Registrar assigns the matter to a suitable mediator under the 2013 Rules. The 2026 Rules under Rule 12(2) introduce greater party autonomy at this stage by allowing parties to choose a mediator of their choice, whether from the list of court accredited mediators or any other person. Where parties fail to agree on a mediator, Rule 12(3) empowers the Registrar or Magistrate in charge of court annexed mediation to appoint a court accredited mediator. Notably, Rule 12(5) of the 2026 Rules introduces a new provision allowing a judicial officer to serve as a mediator with the consent of the parties, though where such mediation fails, the judicial officer must immediately cease to take part in any further proceedings relating to that suit.

• Notification of Commencement

Under Rule 7(1) of the 2013 Rules, the court is required to notify the parties of the commencement date of the mediation sessions within fourteen days after pleadings are complete. The 2026 Rules restructure this process under Rules 19 and 20, whereby the Registrar issues a formal Notice of Appointment of a Mediator to the parties in Form 3, following which the mediator issues a Mediation Notice to the parties stating the date, time and venue of the mediation in Form 4, or the parties contact the mediator within five days of receipt of the notice to commence mediation.

• Commencement of Mediation

The mediation sessions then commence, during which the mediator facilitates structured dialogue between the parties with a view to resolving the dispute amicably. Under the 2026 Rules, Rule 20(2) adds a significant requirement that before mediation commences, the mediator must obtain the consent of the parties and have them sign a Confidentiality and Inadmissibility Agreement in Form 5, formally binding all participants to the rules of confidentiality from the outset.

• Settlement Agreement

Where the parties reach a resolution, Rule 16 of the 2013 Rules requires them to reduce the agreement to writing, signed by all parties, and filed with the Registrar, Magistrate, or authorized court officer, whereupon it is endorsed by the court as a consent judgment. Where resolution is only partial or not achieved at all, the mediator refers the outstanding matters back to the court for determination. The 2026 Rules under Rules 31 to 33 elaborate this framework significantly, requiring the settlement agreement to be signed in triplicate by the parties, their advocates, and the mediator, filed in court within seven days, and adopted by the judicial officer as an order of court after reviewing and confirming its lawfulness. The 2026 Rules further introduce a dedicated provision for partial settlement agreements under Rule 33, and provide under Rule 38 for the setting aside of a consent order or decree on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, fundamental mistake, collusion, illegality, or misapprehension of a material fact.

• Mediator’s Report

Regardless of the outcome, Rule 15 of the 2013 Rules requires the mediator to submit a report of the mediation to the Registrar, Magistrate, or responsible officer within ten days of concluding the mediation sessions. The 2026 Rules under Rule 34 retain this obligation but reduce the timeline to seven days from the conclusion of mediation, reflecting the emphasis on expedition under the new rules.

• No Appeal

Rule 17 of the 2013 Rules provides that no appeal lies against any order granted under the Rules, except as part of a general appeal at the conclusion of the civil action to which the mediation relates, thereby preserving the finality and integrity of the mediation outcome. The 2026 Rules depart from this position by introducing Rule 38, which provides a specific mechanism for setting aside an order or decree arising from a mediation settlement agreement by application to the court that issued it, supported by an affidavit, on the prescribed grounds, thereby striking a balance between finality and the interests of justice.

Who Can Be a Mediator

Under Rule 9 of the 2013 Rules, mediation may only be conducted by a Judge, Registrar, Magistrate, a person accredited as a mediator by the court, a person certified as a mediator by CADER, or a person with relevant qualifications and experience chosen by the parties. Where parties choose their own mediator under Rule 9(2), the responsibility of paying that mediator’s fees falls entirely on the parties. The 2026 Rules under Rule 12 retain these categories while placing greater emphasis on court accredited mediators and introducing a formal accreditation procedure under Rule 7, which unfolds as follows:

1. Application: The applicant submits an application to the Chief Justice through the Chief Registrar using Form 1 set out in Schedule 1 to the Rules.
2. Forwarding to Committee: The Chief Registrar forwards the application to the Case Management Committee for consideration and recommendation.
3. Eligibility Assessment: The Committee assesses whether the applicant meets the fundamental requirement of being a person of high moral character and proven integrity, without which no recommendation can be made.
4. Recommendation: The Committee makes its recommendation to the Chief Justice.
5. Decision by Chief Justice: The Chief Justice either accredits and registers the applicant, or rejects the application and communicates the reasons for rejection to the applicant.
6. Issuance of Certificate: Where accreditation is granted, the Chief Justice issues an accreditation certificate to the successful applicant.
7. Registration: The Chief Registrar registers the accredited mediator and maintains an up-to-date register published on the official Judiciary website.

It is important to note that the entire accreditation process must be concluded within thirty days from the date of receipt of a complete application. Additionally, under Rule 39 of the 2026 Rules, court accredited mediators are remunerated by the court for each concluded case in accordance with guidelines issued by the Chief Justice, and parties to court annexed mediation are expressly prohibited from paying fees directly to the mediator.

Conclusion

Mediation has firmly established itself as an indispensable mechanism for dispute resolution within Uganda’s justice system, offering parties a faster, more cost-effective, and less adversarial alternative to conventional litigation. The transition from the Judicature (Mediation) Rules, 2013 to the Judicature (Court Annexed Mediation) Rules, 2026 reflects a deliberate effort by the Judiciary to strengthen and modernize the mediation framework. While the 2013 Rules laid a commendable foundation by establishing the core principles and basic procedures governing mediation, the 2026 Rules build significantly upon that foundation by introducing formal accreditation procedures, expanded confidentiality protections, appellate mediation, virtual proceedings, and clearer enforcement mechanisms. Ultimately, the effectiveness of mediation rests not on rules alone, but equally on the integrity of mediators, the good faith of parties, and the Judiciary’s continued commitment to promoting mediation as a viable and accessible avenue for the resolution of civil disputes in Uganda.

The burden of a criminal trial, the cost, the time, the uncertainty falls heavily on everyone involved; the accused, the victim, and the state alike. Uganda’s criminal justice system, alive to this reality, has developed mechanisms to resolve criminal matters more efficiently without sacrificing justice. One such mechanism, and the subject of this article, is Plea Bargaining under the Judicature (Plea Bargain) Rules, 2016.

What is Plea Bargaining?

Plea bargaining is governed by the Judicature (Plea Bargain) Rules, 2016. Rule 4 of the Rules defines a plea bargain as the process between an accused person and the prosecution in which the accused person agrees to plead guilty in exchange for an agreement with the prosecutor to drop one or more charges, reduce a charge to a less serious offence, or recommend a particular sentence, subject to the approval of the court. The written agreement entered into between the prosecution and an accused person regarding a charge or sentence is known as a plea bargain agreement.

A Brief History of Plea Bargaining

Plea bargaining is widely believed to have its roots in seventeenth century England, where it emerged as a method to reduce overly severe punishments. Its modern development, however, is closely associated with the United States, where it evolved gradually and was largely frowned upon in formal legal settings until the late nineteenth century.

In Uganda, plea bargaining was first introduced through a team from the United States comprising students from Pepperdine University, who travelled to Uganda as interns for members of the judiciary and proposed the adoption of plea bargaining as a strategy to reduce case backlog during the summer of 2007. The judiciary responded by setting up an eleven member committee headed by the then Principal Judge, Hon. Justice Yokoramu Bamwine, to develop an appropriate strategy. In May 2014, the Ugandan Judiciary, in partnership with Pepperdine University, launched a new plea bargain initiative. It was first introduced through practice directions issued by the Principal Judge and was later codified into the Judicature (Plea Bargain) Rules, 2016.

Legal Framework of Plea Bargaining in Uganda

Plea bargaining in Uganda is anchored in a broad legal framework spanning international instruments and domestic legislation.

International Framework

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

Article 14(3)(b) of the ICCPR recognises the importance of providing defendants with adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence. This provision supports the role of negotiations with the prosecution as part of defence preparation, ensuring that defendants may engage in plea bargaining without undue pressure and with their right to a fair trial safeguarded.

United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC)

Article 11 of the UNTOC encourages states to consider mitigating circumstances in sentencing, which may include factors negotiated through plea agreements. This provision recognises that plea bargaining can expedite the adjudication of cases involving transnational organised crime while also promoting cooperation between states.

African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights

Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter guarantees the right to be tried within a reasonable time and to be advised of the charges against oneself. These provisions facilitate plea negotiations by ensuring that defendants are informed of the charges and have a timely resolution of their cases, thus promoting both efficiency and fairness.

International Criminal Court (ICC)

Rule 139 of the ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence explicitly allows for guilty pleas and agreements between the parties. This reflects the ICC’s recognition of the potential benefits of plea bargaining in expediting proceedings and securing cooperation from defendants in international criminal cases.

---

National Legal Framework

The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda

As the supreme law of Uganda, the Constitution provides the foundational principles that govern criminal proceedings, including plea bargaining. Article 28 of the Constitution guarantees every person the right to a prompt, fair, and public hearing, and establishes the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The prosecution bears the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, as affirmed in the landmark case of Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462. Plea bargaining aligns with Article 28 since it offers the accused a prompt resolution of their matter while still requiring a voluntary and informed guilty plea.

The Judicature (Plea Bargain) Rules, 2016

Enacted on 2nd May 2016 by the Rules Committee, the Judicature (Plea Bargain) Rules, 2016 are the primary legislation governing plea bargaining in Uganda. The Rules are designed to reduce lengthy hearings, address the ever-increasing backlog of criminal cases, ease prison congestion, and promote efficiency in the criminal justice system.

Rule 3 sets out the objectives of the Rules, which include assisting in the reduction of case backlog and prison congestion, offering prompt relief from the stress of criminal prosecution, and including the victim in the adjudication process. The Rules govern the entire plea bargaining process from start to finish. Rule 9 outlines the form and contents of a plea bargain agreement, and Rule 12 sets out the rights of the accused, which include:

• The right to plead not guilty
• The right to be informed of the effect of a guilty plea
• The presumption of innocence
• The right to remain silent and not to testify during trial

Importantly, Rule 12(b) provides that an accused person who voluntarily consents to participate in a plea bargain forfeits certain trial rights, given that their sentence will be reduced in exchange for the guilty plea.

The Penal Code Act Cap 120

The Penal Code Act establishes the criminal law of Uganda, providing for a wide range of offences and their ingredients, which the prosecution must prove. Its relationship to plea bargaining is direct the offences under which an accused may plead guilty during the plea bargaining process are prescribed by the Penal Code Act, complemented by other legislation such as the Anti-Corruption Act, 2009 and the Traffic and Road Safety Act, 1998.

The Magistrates Courts Act Cap 16

The Magistrates Courts Act governs proceedings in the subordinate courts of Uganda, which include the Chief Magistrate’s Court, Grade 1, Grade 2, and Grade 3 Magistrate’s Courts. The Act provides for the procedure of plea taking, whereby a charge sheet is read to the accused and the accused is asked whether they admit or deny the charge. Under the Act, a valid guilty plea must be voluntary, unequivocal, plain, certain, unambiguous, and a specific admission by the accused before a court of competent jurisdiction. The accused must admit all ingredients of the offence per Section 124(2). The key distinction with plea bargaining is that under the Magistrates Courts Act, the plea is initiated by the accused, whereas in a plea bargain, the process is initiated by the prosecution.

The Trial on Indictments Act Cap 23

This legislation governs criminal proceedings in the High Court, which has unlimited original jurisdiction in criminal matters and hears capital offences. Section 63 provides that where an accused pleads guilty, the plea shall be recorded and the accused may be convicted on it. Section 60 provides that the accused shall be placed at the bar and the indictment shall be read to them, after which they are required to plead. It is notable that while Section 132 provides for an appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal against conviction and sentence, a plea bargain sentence cannot ordinarily be challenged on appeal, as it was voluntarily negotiated and agreed upon by the parties.

The Judicature Act Cap 13

The Judicature Act establishes the hierarchy of courts, their jurisdiction, and their composition. Section 40 establishes the Rules Committee, and Section 41 provides for its functions, which include making rules regulating the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court, and all subordinate courts. Pursuant to this power, the Rules Committee enacted the Judicature (Plea Bargain) Rules, 2016.

The Uganda Human Rights Commission Act Cap 24

This Act makes provision for the Uganda Human Rights Commission in pursuance of Articles 52(1)(i) and 58 of the Constitution. Among the Commission’s functions under Section 7 is creating and sustaining awareness of constitutional and fundamental rights. This includes the right to a fair hearing under Article 28 of the Constitution, under which plea bargaining falls.

The Evidence Act Cap 6

Section 102 of the Evidence Act provides that the burden of proof in any suit or proceeding lies on the party who would fail if no evidence were given on either side. In criminal proceedings, this burden lies on the prosecution, as affirmed in Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462. Where an accused agrees to plea bargaining, the prosecution’s obligation to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt is effectively displaced, as the accused’s voluntary guilty plea constitutes an admission of guilt.

Conclusion

Plea bargaining represents a significant and practical mechanism within Uganda’s criminal justice system. Rooted in both international frameworks and robust domestic legislation, it offers a structured and regulated pathway for the expedient resolution of criminal cases while safeguarding the rights of the accused and giving voice to victims. As Uganda’s courts continue to grapple with case backlog and prison congestion, a proper understanding of the Judicature (Plea Bargain) Rules, 2016 is essential for legal practitioners, accused persons, and all stakeholders in the justice system.

Traditional court systems can be punitive and adversarial, and when children are involved, the consequences can be especially damaging. Recognizing this, Uganda’s legal sector has developed a solution that prioritizes the reintegration of a child back into the community, rather than labelling the child as a criminal. This forms the central subject of this article, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) through Diversion.

What is Diversion?

Diversion is provided for under the Children Diversion Guidelines for Police Officers, 2019. Paragraph 1(d) of the Guidelines defines it as the processing and disposing of cases involving children by the police, at the discretion of police, without recourse to formal justice procedures.

Under statutory law, it is provided for under Section 134 of the Children Act Cap. 62, which governs the arrest and charging of children. Section 134(2) specifically empowers police to dispose of a case without recourse to formal court hearings.

This framework finds its backbone in international instruments that provide for child-friendly justice systems, notably:

1. Rule 13.1 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (the Beijing Rules)

2. Article 17 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child.

The Rationale for Diversion

The Diversion process is guided by the following key objectives:

• To prevent the stigmatisation and labelling of children who come into contact with the law.
• To reduce the number of children clogging up the formal justice system.
• To make the child take responsibility and be held accountable for his or her actions, thereby promoting positive upbringing and rehabilitation.

Scope of Diversion

The scope of Diversion is governed by Paragraph 2 of the Guidelines. It applies to minor offences committed by a child who has attained the minimum age of criminal responsibility, which is 12 years, as provided under Section 133(1) of the Children Act Cap. 62.

Paragraph 2(3) specifies the offences to which Diversion applies, including:

• Affray
• Malicious damage to property
• Criminal trespass
• Theft
• Common assault
• Assault
• Prostitution
• Any other offence that is not capital in nature

Paragraph 2(4) sets out the exceptions, circumstances under which Diversion cannot be used:

• Where the safety of the child is at risk
• Where there is no voluntary consent
• In cases involving capital offences

Methods of Diversion

Paragraph 3 of the Guidelines provides that Diversion may take the following forms:

• Verbal or written warning
• Caution and release
• Victim-offender and offender-family conference
• Apology
• Reconciliation
• Restitution
• Diversion programme (including rehabilitation and skills development)

Procedure for Diversion

The procedure for Diversion is outlined under Paragraph 5 of the Guidelines and proceeds in four steps.

Step 1: Receive and Investigate the Complaint

The complaint is received and investigated by the Family and Child Protection Unit of the police. During this stage, the age of the child must be ascertained, the offence must be confirmed to fall within the prescribed list, and the evidence must be assessed to be sufficient to proceed.

Step 2: Notify Relevant Parties

The persons responsible for the child and the Area Probation and Social Welfare Officer must be informed. The process also requires the involvement of a fit person (a person approved to take charge of a child under the Children Act) and the wider community. The complainant is informed about Diversion, and all parties are advised on the process to facilitate a mutual agreement.

Step 3: Record the Settlement

Upon reaching a settlement, all parties and witnesses sign a settlement agreement. The implications of the offence are explained to the child, the child is counselled, and the consequences of failing to complete the Diversion measures are clearly communicated.

Step 4: Handover for Enforcement

The child and all relevant information are handed over to the Local Council Committee or Local Council Court, the Probation and Social Welfare Officer, and the fit person for enforcement of the Diversion measures and continued counselling.

Effect of Diversion

Paragraph 6 of the Guidelines provides that upon successful completion of the Diversion process, the child shall not be considered to have previously committed an offence and shall not have a criminal record.

Paragraph 6(3) further provides that completion of a Diversion measure by the child results in a definite and final closure of the case. Importantly, the child remains eligible for Diversion in the future, provided it is in the child’s best interests.

Conclusion

Diversion represents a significant and progressive step in Uganda’s approach to juvenile justice. By prioritizing rehabilitation, accountability, and community reintegration over punishment, it reflects the broader principle enshrined in the Children Act and international frameworks that the best interests of the child must always be the primary consideration. For legal practitioners, police officers, probation officers, and community leaders, understanding and properly applying the Diversion process is essential to building a justice system that truly serves its youngest members.