The principle that bail is a constitutional right, not a privilege, must be more than rhetorical. It must be lived in every courtroom.
Last week’s decision by the Kawempe Magistrate’s Court to deny bail to 10 members of the major Opposition party, the National Unity Platform (NUP), accused of ‘unlawful drilling,’ tests that principle under the weight of political tension and public scrutiny, leaving a lot of questions than answers.
Chief Magistrate Damalie Agumansiimwe, ruling via Zoom, acknowledged that while bail is constitutionally guaranteed, it is not automatic. She held that the applicants had failed to satisfy key legal thresholds.
The court also accepted prosecutorial concerns such as the flight risk of some of the applicants, witness tampering, and questionable sureties, issues the State argued with urgency and detail.
From the defence side, lawyers insisted that none of the accused faced a life sentence or capital charge, stressing the importance of the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty until proven guilty. They argued that the accused offered fixed residences and solid sureties, and they dismissed the fears of interference as speculative.
Yet the court, prioritising the severity of the allegations and the possible risks, found the defence not persuasive. But this case cannot be divorced from its political context.
Among the accused are prominent NUP figures, including the party’s deputy spokesperson, Alex Waiswa Mufumbiro, and others tied closely to the leadership of Robert Kyagulanyi, alias Bobi Wine.
The impression, whether fact or perception, is that the machinery of justice has too often intersected with the machinery of political control.
When State allegations accuse Opposition actors of organising ‘military-style training’ activities without authorisation, the question is: Do the charges rest on legal merit or political calculus? The big question is whether the ruling of the court is legally defensible or is politically influenced.
The denial of bail extends the pre-trial detention of these individuals, already held since February, into indefinite limbo. In doing so, it places heavy constraints on their ability to mount a defence, maintain personal life, or engage freely in public discourse.
Even if the court remains within its legal discretion, the optics are perilous. The law must not be used to silence or intimidate the political opposition. At stake is more than this particular case. It is the integrity of judicial independence and public confidence in justice on trial.
In politically charged trials, the Judiciary carries a solemn duty to act transparently and impartially to hold the State to its burden, and resist becoming subordinate to political imperatives.
Let the courts demonstrate, not just in rhetoric but in practice, that bail is not a barrier but a bridge, one that enables innocent individuals to remain free until their guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Until then, every denial must be firmly grounded in evidence, not inference, especially when democracy itself is the subject.