The Rule of Law under President Museveni: A Chronicle of Constitutional Betrayal or Strategic Stability?

 

By: Isaac Christopher Lubogo

I. Introduction: Rule of Law or Rule by Law?

 

Ugandan President, Yoweri Museveni’s early promises were deeply rooted in restoring constitutionalism, democratic governance, and the rule of law. In 1986, he declared that “Africa’s problem is not the people but leaders who overstay in power.” Nearly four decades later, this very principle has become the most contested pillar of his legacy. The rule of law under Museveni has traversed four critical phases—from revolutionary legitimacy to legal manipulation.

 

II. Phase 1: The Revolutionary Reformer (1986–1995)

 

Score: Positive

 

Museveni’s initial years were marked by strong constitutional reforms and rebuilding collapsed institutions. Key developments included:

 

Establishment of the Constituent Assembly (1994) that birthed the 1995 Constitution, hailed for its progressive nature and commitment to separation of powers and fundamental rights.

 

Formation of the Judicial Service Commission and strengthening of judicial independence.

 

Operationalizing legal aid services through partnerships with civil society.

 

Assessment: During this phase, Museveni scored high on rule of law, exhibiting a genuine desire to create lasting constitutional foundations. The Constitution itself was celebrated across Africa as a model of post-conflict renewal.

 

III. Phase 2: The Pragmatic Consolidator (1996–2005)

 

Score: Mixed

 

This period saw a gradual shift from legal idealism to political pragmatism:

 

While elections resumed in 1996, the 2005 constitutional amendment removed presidential term limits—one of the first major blows to constitutionalism.

 

Emergence of state-centric control over critical institutions, especially the Electoral Commission and Inspectorate of Government.

 

Deterioration in judicial autonomy, as seen in the 2005 Black Mamba raid on the High Court during Dr. Kizza Besigye’s treason trial—a direct affront to judicial independence.

 

Assessment: While legal frameworks remained intact, the spirit of constitutionalism weakened, revealing a leader gradually steering from principle to power preservation.

 

IV. Phase 3: The Militarized State (2006–2016)

 

Score: Negative

 

The rule of law in this phase was overshadowed by:

 

Militarization of politics—UPDF became a tool not just of national defense but internal political control, especially during elections.

 

Crackdowns on opposition rallies, arrests of opposition figures like Dr. Besigye, and passing of repressive laws such as the Public Order Management Act (2013)—which curtailed freedom of assembly.

 

Use of presidential powers to appoint judges, raising questions about independence, especially following cases with political overtones.

 

Assessment: Rule of law visibly deteriorated. The executive’s encroachment on judicial and legislative spheres was now normalized.

 

V. Phase 4: The Autocrat’s Legalism (2017–Present)

 

Score: Critically Negative

 

This current phase is best defined by legal engineering to retain power, where the law is used more to consolidate authority than protect citizens’ rights:

 

The 2017 Age Limit Amendment (removing the 75-year cap) was rushed through Parliament amid military invasion of the chamber—an unprecedented breach of democratic order.

 

Diminished independence of courts—evident in selective prosecutions, especially against opposition figures like Bobi Wine, while NRM-aligned individuals remain untouched despite grave accusations.

 

Use of pre-emptive arrests, brutal policing, and the draconian Computer Misuse Act to stifle dissent and free speech.

 

Delay in delivering key Constitutional Court judgments—especially those involving electoral reforms and government accountability.

 

Parliament’s transformation into a patronage-driven organ, rubber-stamping executive decisions without meaningful scrutiny.

 

Assessment: Museveni has institutionalized autocracy within a legal façade. Rule of law has regressed into rule by law—a classic hallmark of hybrid authoritarian regimes.

 

VI. International and Local Evaluations

 

Freedom House (2024): Uganda rated “Not Free”, scoring particularly low on civil liberties and political rights.

 

World Justice Project Rule of Law Index: Uganda ranks low on constraints on government powers, absence of corruption, and fundamental rights.

 

Uganda Law Society Reports (2019–2024): Cautionary remarks on the selective application of the law, undermining public trust in the judiciary.

 

African Peer Review Mechanism: Uganda flagged for “democratic backsliding” and “the decline of judicial autonomy.”

 

VII. Conclusion: A Diminishing Scorecard

 

Museveni’s current score on rule of law is alarmingly poor. From a revolutionary reformer to a constitutional manipulator, the President has presided over a gradual deconstruction of Uganda’s legal foundation. What was once a constitutional republic is now veering toward a quasi-legalized autocracy.

 

If tomorrow’s State of the Nation Address is to redeem any credibility, it must not be another monologue of achievements, but a sober reflection on how far we’ve drifted from the promise of 1986.

About the author:

The author, Isaac Christopher Lubogo, is a Ugandan lawyer and lecturer