President Yoweri Museveni's recent directive to the police to stop granting bond to suspects has triggered a wave of reactions from legal experts, opposition leaders, and civil society. The President made the remarks during his end-of-year address on December 31, 2024, citing the rampant theft of livestock and other crimes as justification for his directive. He accused police and courts of enabling criminality through lenient measures like police bonds and court bails.
“There is rampant stealing of cattle, goats, and other property, and the soft handling by police and courts through police bonds and court bails is unacceptable. I have discussed this matter with His Lordship the Chief Justice, and I have banned the issue of police bonds,” Museveni stated emphatically. He added that police officers issuing bonds to suspects whose cases are ready for trial would be held accountable.
The President also criticized Resident District Commissioners and police officers for failing to handle such cases effectively, stating that leniency only fuels insecurity. Drawing a comparison with the disarmament operations in Karamoja, he asserted, “If the Karachunas of Karamoja had been handled with kid gloves, there wouldn’t be peace in Karamoja. It should be the same with village thieves.”
However, legal experts have pushed back, arguing that the directive contravenes established law.
The Uganda Police Act and the Criminal Procedure Code Act explicitly provide for police bonds, which allow suspects to be temporarily released while investigations continue. Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka defended Museveni's stance as a directive on how police should exercise their discretion, but critics argue the President’s approach exceeds his constitutional mandate.
“The police bond is an executive function, and the President is directing its proper use. However, banning police bonds outright would require amending the law, a power reserved for Parliament,” Kiwanuka said.
Isaac Ssemakadde, President of the Uganda Law Society, strongly criticized the directive, labeling it unconstitutional. “The President cannot unilaterally amend laws or issue directives that contravene existing legal provisions. Superior orders or presidential directives are not law and cannot override constitutional rights,” Ssemakadde asserted, citing Article 99 of the Constitution, which obliges the President to uphold the Constitution and existing laws.
He further warned police officers against implementing the directive, noting that individual liability applies under the Human Rights Enforcement Act for violations of the law.
Opposition leaders have also condemned Museveni’s directive, expressing fears that it could be abused for political purposes. Joel Ssenyonyi, Leader of the Opposition in Parliament, accused the President of attempting to turn his directives into law.
“This is what happens when a leader stays in power for too long—they start believing they are above the law. Police bonds are often a lifeline for government critics arrested for peaceful protests, and this directive is a ploy to silence dissent,” he said.
Kampala Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago called the move a “blatant violation” of constitutional guarantees on civil liberties, while Shadow Attorney General Wilfred Niwagaba raised concerns about potential misuse in political disputes. “This directive could lead to prolonged detentions without trial, undermining fundamental rights,” Niwagaba said.
Legal experts unanimously agree that banning police bonds without legislative action is unconstitutional. They argue that police bonds are a crucial safeguard to ensure that suspects are not unlawfully detained while investigations are ongoing. Critics have urged the government to focus on improving investigative processes rather than issuing directives that undermine the rule of law.
As the debate unfolds, the directive has spotlighted the tension between executive authority and constitutional limits, raising broader questions about governance and accountability in Uganda.
