In September 2025, The Parliament of the Republic of Uganda invited the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to submit its views on the Forensic and Scientific Analytical Services Bill, 2025. To the DPP it was not entirely true to say that there has not been any legal framework to regulate forensic services in Uganda; some of the elements of forensic services provision are already ring-fenced in the Police Act and the Identification of Offenders Act. Health workers, who offer forensic services, are guided by the Uganda Medical and Practitioners Act.
In the Bill, one of the functions of the Government Analytical Laboratory is to create a forensic and scientific database. The Bill, however, does not define what a forensic and scientific database is. Nevertheless, from the functions of the GAL, as spelt out in the Bill, the composition of the database can be deduced. The Bill empowers the GAL to conduct forensic and scientific analysis including ballistics and tool marks.
This would imply that the GAL would be mandated to have a database of firearms, a function which by law is already a classified function of the Armed Forces.
The function of computer and cybercrime means that the GAL would have a database of electronic communications or data, which is also a preserve of law enforcement agencies under the Interception of Communications Act and the Uganda Communications Council Act. Keeping a biometrics of persons is already a mandate of the National Identification and Registration Authority under the Registration of Persons Act.
Questions Raised
The DPP has also questioned the designation of the Department of Inspection and Legal Services, an already existing department in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, as the regulator of forensic services in the country. There are questions of whether the old department will take on new roles or whether a new department will be crafted and what will happen to the old one.
There have also been questions raised by other stakeholders about this department including who man this department and what qualifications the regulators hold and whether they are competent to regulate forensic services in the country. The existing department is headed by the Commissioner of Inspections and Compliance of Citizenship and Immigration Control who reports to the Director Immigration who is also known as the Chief Citizenship and Immigration Control Officer.
The Director reports to the Board who then reports to the Minister. But the Forensic Bill, 2025 establishes another avenue of the Commissioner reporting directly to the Minister. The DPP questions whether the Bill intends to introduce a second department of Inspections and Legal services in the same Ministry or to vest the regulatory functions, as outlined in the bill, in the same old department. If the intention is to use the existing department, it does not have the necessary technical competency to regulate forensic services whose expertise is domiciled in different ministries and sectors.
And if the Bill is intended to introduce a separate department, it is bound to encounter problems in the reporting mechanisms for the two departments which will cause conflict in administration, let alone a conflict of interest. The Bill does not also provide details of the composition of the department to objectively evaluate its expertise to carry out the listed functions.
An illegal entity?
The DPP has also raised questions about legally designating the GAL as the national referral for forensic and analytical services. The key question is how the GAL has been existing and what the legal consequences would be to the various reports previously issued by them in the various courts of law. Has the GAL been an illegal entity that this anomaly must now be rectified?
It is a fact that the GAL has been in existence and performing legal duties. Providing for its establishment in the Bill may create questions as to its current legitimacy and give room to legal challenges to its existing technical reports. Another question raised by another stakeholder is what GAL has not been able to do that this Bill will automatically cure.
Legally mandating the GAL as the national referral for forensic and analytical services implies that the GAL will have a mandate to review reports from the other laboratories and for the GAL to do this it must have personnel with superior expertise.
To the DPP review of expert forensic reports does not usually mean review by third parties in an appellate manner. In many instances the forensic testing processes degenerates samples and makes it impossible for further analysis.
The Acts
Scientific reviews should preferably be done by the same expert for specific reasons. If one party disagrees with a specific result then that party is free to have the sample tested in another laboratory. If the two results contradict each other, the two experts are evaluated and inference drawn from their presentations. The Magistrate’s Act, the Trial and Indictments Act and the Evidence Act already have a standard of whom of the experts court should believe in the event of contradictions and the law has provided guidance to judicial tribunals on who to believe and disbelieve in such cases.
To the DPP the law should instead provide for conclusiveness of expert findings in a report. The law should focus on mechanisms for developing reliable scientific internal standards as a measure of authenticity of the findings. An expert opinion can only be challenged through the conventional process as opposed to administrative reviews by third party laboratories. The DPP also faulted some sections of the bill that appeared to be redundant and one of these is the category of other laboratories that the law does not apply to. It is not clear whether this section covers all government-related laboratories or only those specifically created by law. Some of these laboratories are, in fact, created as a matter of policy, not law.
The section of the Bill on DNA seems to target voluntary testing only. The section requires that DNA samples are collected by the Analytical Laboratory. This conflicts with policing procedures. This section does not provide for DNA samples involuntarily taken from persons in conflict with the law or from objects during investigations where the DNA donors are not known.