Human rights lawyer and activist Sarah Bireete has drawn a comparative assessment of how Uganda’s legal profession has been treated under two very different political eras, arguing that while methods have evolved, pressure on lawyers has remained a consistent feature of governance.
In her analysis, Bireete highlights that both the Idi Amin and Yoweri Museveni administrations have, in different ways, viewed lawyers handling politically sensitive matters as threats rather than neutral officers of the court.
She notes that legal representation for opposition figures has often been interpreted as political alignment, exposing advocates to state scrutiny and retaliation.
She further points to a recurring pattern of intimidation aimed at weakening access to justice.
According to her assessment, harassment, surveillance, arrests, and threats have been used to discourage lawyers from taking up cases involving government critics or politically charged disputes.
This, she argues, has contributed to a wider erosion of confidence in the independence of legal defence in such matters.
Bireete also identifies what she describes as a sustained weakening of judicial independence across both periods.
She argues that pressure on lawyers has historically gone hand in hand with broader attempts to limit the courts’ ability to act as checks on executive and security power.
A culture of impunity, she adds, has persisted, with few consequences for those accused of targeting legal practitioners.
However, she draws clear distinctions in the nature and execution of repression. Under Idi Amin, she notes, the targeting of lawyers was overt and violent, often involving abductions, torture, and killings carried out with little secrecy.
In contrast, she says the current environment is more bureaucratised, with arrests, surveillance, military involvement in civilian legal matters, and procedural harassment often framed within security or law enforcement justifications.
Bireete further contrasts the constitutional context, observing that Amin ruled largely through decrees outside any legal framework, while the current administration operates within a constitutional order that is frequently weakened through selective enforcement and increasing militarisation of civilian justice systems.
She also highlights differences in international positioning, stating that Amin’s regime was largely isolated globally, whereas the current government maintains international legitimacy while projecting adherence to the rule of law.
Despite these differences, Bireete concludes that both eras reflect a shared tendency to neutralise lawyers seen as challenging state power.
She warns that while the methods may have shifted from overt violence to legal and institutional pressure, the underlying risk to constitutional democracy remains persistent.