By Hon. J. J. Opondo *
“The Constitution is not merely a legal document; it is the moral covenant through which a people restrain power so that liberty may outlive those who exercise authority.”
I. When History Summons a Nation
History seldom announces its decisive moments with the sound of drums. More often, constitutional decline arrives quietly: institutions gradually lose their independence, public confidence weakens, and the ordinary citizen begins to regard justice as uncertain rather than assured.
Uganda appears to stand at such a constitutional moment following arbitrary arrests and abduction of Dr. Maria Matembe, Dr. Sarah Bereete, Counsel Erias Lukwago deportation of SC Martha Karua both lawyers for Rtd Dr. Kiiza Besigye and another on a trumped up political charges of terrorism to misprision of treason.
The nationwide industrial action by the Uganda Law Society, statements from the East Africa Law Society, the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, FIDA–Kenya, and concerns expressed by media organisations regarding freedom of expression and institutional independence have elevated recent events beyond ordinary political disagreement. They invite reflection on the strength of constitutional governance itself.
This is not merely Uganda’s domestic conversation. It is a question for Africa, the Commonwealth, and the international community because constitutional democracy is measured not only by elections, but by the independence of institutions, fidelity to the rule of law, and the protection of fundamental rights.
II. Uganda’s Constitutional Story Did Not Begin in 1986
The constitutional memory of Uganda did not begin with the National Resistance Army’s capture of power in January 1986.
It stretches through the Buganda Agreement of 1900, the gradual emergence of representative institutions during the Protectorate, the Independence Constitution of 1962, the Republican Constitution of 1967, subsequent constitutional upheavals 1971-79(Iddi Amina regime), and finally the Constitution of 1995 amended to remove terms, age limits and solely to entrench one party state, continued existence and operation of the Movement Act, Cap. 261, enacted to regulate the Movement political system under Article 70 of the Constitution inconsistent with Articles 1, 2 and 71 of the Constitution against the adoption of the multiparty political system in Uganda in 2005.
Each constitutional settlement sought to answer one enduring question:
How shall power be exercised so that government serves the people rather than the people serving government?
The Republican Constitution of 1967 represented a decisive constitutional reorganisation. Whatever scholarly debates remain about aspects of that Constitution, it reflected the aspiration that sovereignty should be exercised through public institutions governed by law rather than personal authority.
The Constitution of 1995 reaffirmed that aspiration by declaring in Article 1 that all power belongs to the people and that the Constitution is supreme under Article 2.
These principles remain the foundation of Uganda’s constitutional order.
III. Parliament Was Intended to Be Independent
The Westminster tradition inherited by Uganda envisaged Parliament as an institution separate from the Executive.
The Speaker is not merely a political victor; the office is designed to safeguard the dignity, impartiality, and authority of the House.
The constitutional legitimacy of Parliament depends upon public confidence that it exercises oversight independently and legislates in the national interest.
For that reason, constitutional scholars have long emphasised the importance of preserving clear institutional boundaries between Parliament, the Executive, political organisations, and the security services.
It’s absurdity that the current speaker of Ugandan Parliament has called upon all Ugandans to join a Para-military League of UPDF(PLU) belonging to the presidents son dubbed Uganda’s Chief of Armed forces.
Public confidence which should have been sustained not only by actual independence but rather by the appearance of independence is wanting.
IV. The Rule of Law Is the Republic’s First Defence
As A.V. Dicey observed, the rule of law requires that every person and every public authority remain subject to law.
Lord Bingham later described it as the constitutional principle requiring that all persons and authorities are equally bound by laws publicly made and administered by independent courts.
Uganda’s Constitution embodies these principles.
Article 20 recognises rights as inherent.
Article 28 guarantees a fair hearing.
Article 44 protects fair trial rights from derogation.
Article 128 safeguards judicial independence.
These are not ceremonial provisions. They are constitutional guarantees that sustain public confidence in the Republic.
V. Lawyers, Courts, and the Constitutional Order
The legal profession occupies a unique constitutional position.
Lawyers are officers of the court and indispensable participants in the administration of justice.
The United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers affirm that advocates must be able to perform their professional duties free from intimidation or improper interference.
Similarly, Principle 8 of the International Bar Association Standards for the Independence of the Legal Profession provides that no lawyer should suffer sanctions merely for representing a client.
These protections exist not for the benefit of lawyers alone but for every citizen whose access to justice depends upon an independent legal profession.
VI. East Africa’s Constitutional Compact
The East African Community is founded not only upon economic integration but also upon shared constitutional values.
Article 6(d) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community commits Partner States to democracy, the rule of law, accountability, and the protection of human rights.
As the President of the East Africa Law Society aptly observed:
“The success of East African integration will be judged not only by the movement of goods, capital, and persons across borders, but by the Community’s collective commitment to justice, professional independence, and the rule of law.”
Regional integration cannot be sustained by commerce alone. It requires confidence that constitutional institutions across the region remain credible and independent.
VII. The Republic and the Generation Yet to Write Its Greatest Chapter
There is an ancient truth, whispered through history from Athens to Westminster and echoed in African constitutional thought:
No republic is destroyed in a single day.
It declines gradually when citizens become accustomed to silence, when institutions surrender their independence, and when power mistakes longevity for legitimacy.
Constitutions do not exist to preserve governments.
They exist to preserve nations.
They are solemn covenants between generations, restraining the ambitions of the present so that liberty may endure for the future.
Uganda now stands before a profound constitutional question.
The issue is not simply who governs today.
The deeper question is what constitutional inheritance shall be left to tomorrow.
History teaches with relentless consistency that no political order is permanent. Every government, however powerful, is ultimately judged not by the duration of its tenure but by the strength of the institutions it leaves behind.
Empires have vanished.
Dynasties have passed.
The Luo dismantled Bachwenzi dynasty.
Governments once considered immovable have yielded to the inexorable verdict of history when they ceased to derive their legitimacy from constitutional principle and the consent of the governed.
VIII. A Message to Uganda’s Generation Z
To Uganda’s Generation Z:
You are not merely the heirs of this Republic.
You are its future custodians.
You inherited neither the constitutional struggles that shaped Uganda’s past nor the political decisions that produced its present. Yet history has entrusted you with the responsibility of determining its future.
Do not inherit constitutional silence.
Inherit constitutional courage.
Assert your rights peacefully, lawfully, and responsibly. Participate in public life, engage your communities, hold institutions accountable through constitutional means, and insist that the promises contained in the Constitution are honoured in practice as well as in text.
The future of Uganda will not be secured by despair or division or fear of not joining PLU.
It will be secured by citizens who understand that democracy is sustained not by periodic elections alone, but by daily vigilance in defence of the rule of law, judicial independence, institutional integrity, and equal citizenship.
IX. The Verdict of History
History keeps no permanent favourites.
Its judgment is impartial.
It records whether nations chose institutions over personalities, law over arbitrary power, accountability over impunity, and hope over fear.
The Republic belongs to no individual, no political party, no family, no region, and no generation alone.
It belongs equally to every Ugandan.
The clock of constitutional history does not stop.
It asks every generation a single enduring question:
When liberty required guardians, where did you stand?
May Uganda answer not with fear but with constitutional fidelity.
May Africa continue to strengthen democratic institutions founded upon the rule of law.
And may future generations inherit a Republic in which public authority is exercised under the Constitution, institutions remain stronger than personalities, and justice is administered without fear, favour, affection, or ill will.
For in the final judgment of history, nations are remembered not for the longevity of their rulers but for the resilience of their constitutions, the independence of their institutions, and the courage of their citizens to preserve the promise of liberty.
* Hon. J. J. Opondo is Public Relations Officer, National Democratic Opposition Council (NDOC) /Legal researcher and public affairs analyst.
