Lawyers Slam ‘Defective’ Charges against Bireete, Urge Court to End Alleged Unlawful Detention

Lawyers representing human rights activist, Sarah Bireete, have filed urgent applications seeking a production warrant to have her brought before the Buganda Road Chief Magistrates Court.

They are arguing that her charge and remand are unlawful and violate constitutional safeguards.

The applications, dated January 7, urge the court to nullify what they describe as a “fatally defective” charge sheet and an illegal remand order.

Dr Bireete, the Executive Director of the Centre for Constitutional Governance, was arrested on December 30, 2025, following a police search at her residence in Kampala.   

She was produced in court on January 2, 2026, and charged with unlawfully obtaining and disclosing personal data under Section 35(1) and (2) of the Data Protection and Privacy Act, 2019.

Prosecutors allege that she accessed and disclosed national voters’ information without the consent of the Electoral Commission (EC).       

The Buganda Road Court, presided over by Chief Magistrate Winnie Nankya, remanded her to Luzira Prison until January 21, granting the prosecution 19 days to conclude investigations.  

Bireete’s lawyers from the Legal Aid Project of the Uganda Law Society and C.C. JByamukama & Co. Advocates argue that the charge is “unlawful, null, and void” for failing to disclose essential elements of an offence.     

They contend that the phrase “national voters’ information” is vague and not defined under Uganda’s electoral laws, rendering the charge legally defective.   

The defence also challenges the remand order, arguing it contravenes Section 122(2) of the Magistrates Courts Act (Cap 16), which limits remand in magistrates’ courts to 15 days. They maintain that remanding Bireete for 19 days amounts to unlawful detention.

Invoking Section 11(2) of the Magistrates Courts Act, the lawyers are seeking a production warrant to enable Bireete to appear in court and challenge the legality of her detention, noting that the application supersedes an earlier bail request.

The filings further rely on Article 23(3) of the 1995 Constitution, which requires arrested persons to be produced before a court as soon as possible and within 48 hours, as a safeguard against arbitrary detention.

The defence also cites Section 3 of the Children’s Act (Cap 59), emphasising Bireete’s status as a mother and arguing that the law requires courts to prioritise the welfare of children in decisions affecting their parents.

“We humbly seek a production warrant to address the court’s jurisdiction and the lawfulness of our client’s detention,” reads the application signed by lawyers including Anthony Asimwe, Vice President of C.C. JByamukama & Co. Advocates.

Bireete’s case unfolds amid heightened political tensions as Uganda prepares for the 2026 elections.  Previous polls, notably the 2021 general election, were marred by allegations of voter suppression, arrests of government critics, and internet shutdowns, drawing both domestic and international scrutiny.   

Human rights groups and election monitoring bodies have framed Bireete’s arrest as part of a broader pressure on civil society actors involved in electoral oversight.                                              

The Global Network of Domestic Election Monitors (GNDEM) described Birete’s detention as a “serious concern” that undermines non-partisan citizen observation, while the European Partnership for Democracy warned of a “worrying trend of arbitrary arrests” in an increasingly tense political climate.   

Public reactions have been swift. Opposition politician Dr Stella Nyanzi described the arrest as politically motivated, while human rights defender Nahabwe Bruce termed it intimidation aimed at silencing scrutiny of the electoral process.    

Regional media outlets, including The East African, have reported growing concern over the length of the remand and its constitutional implications.   

The Uganda Police Force, through spokesperson Rachel Kawaala, has defended the arrest, stating that Bireete is suspected of breaching data protection laws enacted to safeguard sensitive voter information.    

The Electoral Commission has not issued a specific response to the case, though it has previously emphasised strict enforcement of the Data Protection and Privacy Act, passed in 2019 to align Uganda’s legal framework with international data protection standards.

Pro-government commentators argue that the case reflects the enforcement of the rule of law rather than political persecution.  

Analysts say the case could have broader implications for civic participation and public confidence in the electoral process, particularly for domestic election observers operating in a highly polarised environment.

With the court is yet to rule on the production warrant applications, observers are watching closely for signals of judicial independence.

Bireete’s legal team remains confident. “Our client has effectively been sentenced to nearly 20 days in prison without trial. That contravenes the Constitution,” one defence lawyer said after the initial hearing.

If granted, the applications could set an important precedent on pretrial detention and judicial oversight in politically sensitive cases ahead of the polls.