DPP, police raise concerns over proposed forensic law

2026-03-23 - 01:55

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) and the Uganda Police Force (UPF) have raised concerns over the proposed Forensic and Scientific Analytical Services Bill, 2025, warning that some of its provisions could create institutional conflicts and disrupt criminal justice processes. The Bill, which has been presented on the floor of parliament three times, originates from the ministry of Internal Affairs and seeks to strengthen the legal use of forensic evidence and modern databases in criminal investigations nationwide. It also proposes to regulate forensic laboratories, designate the Government Analytical Laboratory (GAL) as the national referral centre, and create a national database covering services such as DNA analysis, toxicology and cyber forensics. Proponents argue that expanding DNA, ballistics and toxicology databases would help investigators quickly identify suspects from crime-scene exhibits, reduce mass arrests, speed up prosecutions and improve accuracy in the justice system. The ministry of Internal Affairs maintains that Uganda currently lacks a comprehensive legal framework governing forensic and scientific analytical services, citing weak oversight, lack of standards and limited sector development as key gaps the Bill intends to address. However, both the ODPP and police have questioned the proposal to designate GAL as the national referral centre and the powers granted to the proposed Department of Inspection and Legal Services under the ministry of Internal Affairs. Critics argue the Bill could duplicate existing laws, create power struggles among agencies and introduce bureaucracy that may delay investigations and prosecutions. John Baptist Asiimwe, writing on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), said the Bill in its current form contravenes the mandates of several criminal justice institutions. He cited Article 212(c) of the Constitution and Section 4(1)(e) of the Police Act, which mandate the police to prevent and detect crime. Asiimwe said that in effect, anything to do with law enforcement and investigation is a preserve of the UPF, adding that the Identification of Offenders Act already provides for profiling suspects through fingerprints, photographs and other measurements. Police director of forensic science Andrew Mubiru said the force’s concerns were incorporated into the ODPP response submitted to the Office of the Attorney General and the parliamentary committee on defence and internal affairs. “For us we suggest that there should be a harmonized ground in order not to cripple functions of duties of other key institutions,” Mubiru said. Under the proposed law, the Department of Inspection and Legal Services would regulate forensic services, set standards, monitor compliance, inspect laboratories and license forensic facilities. The Bill also proposes that the GAL serve as Uganda’s National Poison Information Centre responsible for managing poisoning incidents, research and public awareness. The ODPP further argues that the claim that Uganda lacks a legal framework for forensic services is inaccurate, noting that several aspects of forensic work are already regulated under existing laws, including the Police Act, the Identification of Offenders Act and the Allied Health Professionals Act. Asiimwe also warned that consolidating scientific analytical services under a single centre could undermine specialised laboratories across government agencies. He cited facilities at the Uganda National Bureau of Standards (UNBS), National Drug Authority (NDA), National Agricultural Research Organisation (NARO), National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) and Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA), among others, as already performing specialised analytical functions. Other affected laboratories, according to the ODPP, include those operated by the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA), ministry of Health (MOH), National Water and Sewerage Corporation (NWSC), ministry of Works and Transport (MoWT), Uganda Industrial Research Institute (UIRI) and the National Building Review Board (NBRB). “Therefore, enacting a law that has the potential of confining the numerous functions of various agencies should be handled with a lot of care after wide consultations with different stakeholders with varying areas of expertise,” Asiimwe warned. The ODPP also raised concerns about a clause seeking to establish GAL as a department under the ministry of Internal Affairs, noting that the laboratory already exists and has issued forensic reports used in investigations and prosecutions over the years. Retaining the clause, the ODPP argues, could create ambiguity about the legal status of previous reports and expose them to legal challenges. Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka, in response, advised that any examination, analysis, report or certificate issued by GAL prior to the commencement of the Act should remain valid and admissible for legal purposes, effectively safeguarding past work. Efforts to obtain a comment from Government Analytical Laboratory director Kepher Kuchana Kateu were unsuccessful, as he indicated he was unavailable.