On September 11, the Clerk to Parliament wrote to the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP) inviting the directorate to submit its views on the Forensic and Scientific Analytical Services Bill, 2025.
The Bill’s key objective is to provide the regulation of forensic and scientific analytical services in the country. Five days later, on September 16, their views were submitted.
The DPP reaffirmed its constitutional mandate of directing the police to investigate any information of a criminal nature and to institute criminal proceedings against any person or authority in any court with competent jurisdiction.
The Directorate also noted the legal role of the Uganda Police Force to prevent and detect crime. And by virtue of this mandate, the DPP is an important consumer of forensic services in the country.
The Memorandum of the Forensic and Scientific Analytical Services Bill, 2025, asserts that there is no legal framework to regulate forensic and scientific analytical services in Uganda.
To the DPP this is not absolutely correct as some of the elements of forensic services provision are already ring-fenced in the Police Act and the Identification of Offenders Act.
The DPP challenged some of the key definitions in the Bill. In the Black’s Law Dictionary, 10th edition, ‘forensics’ means relating to or involving scientific methods for investigating crime.
Forensic science means a broad range of evidence related disciplines some of which are laboratory based while others are based on interpretation of observed patterns and others are based on a combination of experimental and scientific analysis.
A forensic laboratory carries the same meaning with a crime laboratory and this is defined as a science laboratory that examines and analysis evidence from criminal cases.
To the DPP, therefore, any reference to forensics is in reality about scientific investigative process to solve a crime. Scientific analytical services, on the other hand, involves performing of sophisticated testing and analysis on various samples, to classify, identify and quantify their chemical, biological or physical characteristics.
This analysis is designed to provide crucial data for research, development, quality control and regulatory compliance across diverse sectors. To the DPP, the phase ‘regulation of scientific analytical services’ deals with a wide range of scientific services and involving several components, whose expertise can never be combined in one center.
The DPP cited different laboratories in various departments and statutory bodies that offer scientific analytical services and these include laboratories under the Uganda Bureau of Standards, the National Drug Authority, the National Agriculture Research Organisation, National Environment Management Agency, the National Water and Sewerage Cooperation and the Ministry of Health.
It was the observation of the DPP that enacting a law that has the potential of confining the numerous functions of various agencies should be handled with a lot of care and after wide consultations with the different stakeholders with varying areas of expertise. Lack of a wide spectrum of consultation could result into unintended consequences.
To the DPP, the inclusion of the word ‘forensics’ in the title of the bill creates ripples, as the term carries various ring-fenced mandates especially in law enforcement. As defined in law forensics connotes an investigative process connected to law enforcement and crime.
The title of the Bill, therefore, has a wider scope beyond criminal investigation. And the definition of ‘forensic science’ in the Bill is not in tandem with the recognized definitions.
In the opinion of the Directorate, the definitions in the Bill should be given clearer and broader meanings to cover all possible services as envisioned by the Black’s law dictionary.
The Forensic and Scientific Analytical Services Bill 2025 is basically about the services provided by the Government Analytical Laboratory, to the exclusion of the services offered by other stakeholders. In the United Kingdom (UK), the Government Chemist has a rich history dating back to the 19th Century.
The role of a Government Chemist originated in 1842 when the Department of Excise set up a laboratory in London’s Broad Street to detect adulteration of tobacco.
The major mandate of the Government Chemist encompassed public health, environmental protection and regulatory enforcement. Its key responsibilities were to act as a referee analyst to resolve disputes and to provide authoritative scientific support for government policy and regulations.
During the British colonial era, colonies often established departments modeled on UK structures, adapting to local needs. Countries like Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania established colonial-era laboratories to serve then needs including chemical analysis for agriculture and public health.
This is the reason why prior to the establishment of autonomous laboratories in the various and diverse government departments, all their analytical services were being handled by the Directorate of Government Analytical Laboratories with the police also referring to them some cases for biological and chemical analysis.
The present Directorate of Government Analytical Laboratory in Uganda was established in 1930 as the Chief Government Chemist and Pathologist to support the then Mulago Hospital.
This, over the years, metamorphosed into the Government Chemist headed by the Chief Government Chemist providing a wide range of scientific analytical services to the various government departments. On the sidelines, the police relied on their ability to perform poison analysis.
However due to the internal weakness of the police to establish core specialists in the Scientific Aids Section of the Identification Bureau, some of the personnel of the Government Chemist worked with the police for a number of years at the Police Headquarters under the Identification Bureau.
In the early 2,000s, the Government Chemist was restructured into the Government Analytical Laboratory with two departments of Criminalists and Quality and Chemical Verification. This gave the GAL the opportunity to withdraw its personnel from the police and boost the Criminalists department.
Although there is no legal framework establishing the GAL, it has, however continued to exist as an administrative unit under the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
Courts of law have, nevertheless, continued to recognize the reports from the GAL as forensic evidence. It would be interesting to find out what value a new law would add to the GAL, or alternatively what they have been unable to do without a new law.