By Witness Radio Team.

Uganda’s Constitutional Court has ruled that Resident District Commissioners (RDCs), police, and other executive actors have no authority to stop, suspend, delay, or require additional approvals for lawful court eviction orders, in a landmark judgment that reinforces judicial independence.

The ruling comes amid escalating land conflicts and follows presidential directives that require all evictions to be scrutinized by the District Security Committees, chaired by Resident District Commissioners (RDCs), in consultation with the Ministry of Lands. An RDC is a constitutional representative of the President at the district and local government levels.

Under Uganda’s 2021 Land Eviction Guidelines and Practice Directions, court agents may carry out evictions after strict legal requirements are fulfilled. These include a valid court order or decree authorizing the eviction, an eviction order clearly identifying affected persons or structures, a notice of eviction or demolition issued to affected parties, and a warrant of eviction or demolition.

However, many evictions in Uganda have been criticized as forceful or unlawful, carried out without a proper due process.

In a presidential communication in 2022, President Museveni directed that no eviction should occur in any district without a District Security Committee meeting chaired by RDCs and conducted in consultation with the Ministry of Lands.

But court Bailiffs under the umbrella body, Uganda Court Bailiffs Association, challenged the President’s directive and petitioned the Constitutional Court of Uganda, arguing that even where valid court orders exist, RDC-led security committees have frequently interfered with lawful enforcement.

Court records listed the petition as Uganda Court Bailiffs Association Ltd vs Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 0001 of 2023),

The Constitutional Court addressed that tension, holding that enforcement of court orders is not an executive function but an integral component of judicial power.

“The court therefore reiterates that enforcement of judicial decisions remains a core judicial function. Any participation by non-judicial actors must be facilitative only, and not supervisory or controlling,” The ruling, which Witness Radio has seen a copy of, states.

The 2023 petition further challenged what it described as persistent interference by the executive arm of government, including RDCs, police, District Internal Security Officers (DISOs), and local councils in the enforcement of court orders.

According to the petitioners, security agencies had, over time, imposed unauthorized “clearances,” halted executions, confiscated court documents, and frustrated lawful enforcement of judicial decisions.

In its decision, the Constitutional Court distinguished facilitating and controlling court executions.

“Any conduct by executive officials that purports to halt execution, confiscate court process, subject judicial warrants to extra-judicial “clearance” or ‘approval,’ or otherwise frustrate lawful execution amounts to a direct encroachment upon judicial authority and is inconsistent with Articles 2, 126, and 128 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda.” The judgment stated.

The judgment, concurred in by Deputy Chief Justice Flavian Zeija and Constitutional Court judges Frederick Egonda Ntende, Florence Nakachwa, and Ketrah Katunguka, acknowledged that security agencies may lawfully participate during sensitive enforcement exercises, including land evictions, particularly where there is risk of violence or public disorder. However, the judges stressed that such involvement must be strictly limited.

“Where the execution of a court order is likely to provoke violence, resistance, or a breach of the peace, security agencies are lawfully entitled to intervene for the limited purpose of maintaining peace, protecting life and property, and ensuring that the process does not descend into disorder,” the judgment reads.

But the court warned that this supportive role has “clear constitutional limits.” “Security agencies do not possess authority to review, vary, suspend, veto, or otherwise sit in judgment over court orders. The direction and supervision of execution remain the exclusive preserve of the courts.”

The court further clarified that security agencies may verify the authenticity of court orders where necessary, particularly in cases involving forged, irregularly issued, or improperly extracted court documents.

“Such verification, however, must remain strictly confined to confirming authenticity. It must not be turned into a process for questioning the legal validity, correctness, propriety, or enforceability of the order itself, for those are matters reserved exclusively for the courts. Nor must it become a device for delay, obstruction, refusal, or abuse. Verification is legitimate only where it is undertaken promptly, in good faith, and solely for the purpose of ascertaining that the order sought to be enforced is genuine. Once authenticity is confirmed, security agencies are bound to act in aid of, and not in derogation from, the authority of the court,” the ruling states.

The ruling raises new legal questions about the implementation of recent presidential directives on land evictions.

In a presidential communication in 2022, President Museveni directed that no eviction should occur in any district without a District Security Committee meeting chaired by RDCs and conducted in consultation with the Ministry of Lands. He further warned that members of District Security Committees would face consequences if evictions occurred outside this framework.

The President also warned magistrates and judges against facilitating illegal evictions in collusion with land grabbers and tasked the Minister of Lands with reporting judicial abuses to the Attorney General for possible legal action.

However, the Constitutional Court ruling appears to place constitutional limits on the role of executive actors in enforcing lawful court orders.

The judgment arrives against a backdrop of increasing land conflicts across Uganda, where forced evictions, land-grabbing allegations, and court-enforced removals remain a major source of tension.

It is unclear whether the President’s office will appeal the ruling.