“The legacy of resistance to arbitrary power is measured not by ceremonial tribute but by contemporary fidelity to the rule of law.”
Dedication
To the countless men and women — known to us or unknown — who have died or endure imprisonment under suspicion, political manipulation, or arbitrary authority, yet remain innocent at heart and in conscience. May this Janani Luwum Day remind us of the sacred duty to protect human dignity, uphold justice, and ensure that no one suffers silently for the failings of power. May their courage and patience inspire a society where law restrains authority, not the other way around.
Abstract
This article examines the continued relevance of Archbishop Janani Luwum’s legacy in contemporary Uganda by linking historical resistance to arbitrary state power with modern constitutional practices. It juxtaposes Luwum’s principled confrontation with autocratic violence in the 1970s against recent events surrounding the arrest and detention of Rev. Fr. Deusdedit Ssekabira.
Through legal and political analysis grounded in constitutional law, human-rights norms, and state theory, the article argues that patterns of executive overreach and the securitization of dissent undermine the rule of law, erode constitutional governance, and raise urgent questions about the ongoing challenge of consolidating democratic order in Uganda.
Disclaimer
This article analyzes the events surrounding Rev. Fr. Deusdedit Ssekabira solely on the basis of publicly available reports and credible media coverage as of February 2026. It does not seek to determine guilt or innocence, which remains the sole prerogative of competent judicial authorities.
The discussion highlights patterns of state action, constitutional principles, and human-rights considerations, particularly regarding arrest procedures and judicial oversight. Any commentary on the nature or method of Ssekabira’s arrest is intended to critically assess legal and institutional norms, and is made without prejudice to ongoing proceedings or the outcome of formal adjudication.
- Introduction
The annual observance of Janani Luwum Day on 16 February in Uganda serves as both memorial and moral litmus test for the nation’s commitment to the rule of law, human dignity, and constitutional protections. Archbishop Janani Luwum was executed in 1977 under the dictatorship of Idi Amin, ostensibly for challenging the regime’s extra‑judicial killings and abuses of power.
His martyrdom has since been canonized in Uganda’s civic memory as a symbol of faithful resistance to arbitrary authority, inscribed into national consciousness through public holiday status and official remembrance.
However, commemorating historical martyrdom depends not only on remembrance but also on contemporary practice. This study investigates whether the legal and political norms Luwum defended have been institutionalized or remain aspirational.
It does so through analysis of the case of Rev. Fr. Deusdedit Ssekabira, whose 2025 arrest and prolonged detention without timely judicial oversight highlight critical tensions in Uganda’s constitutional order.
- Constitutional Framework and Legal Guarantees
Uganda’s 1995 Constitution embodies foundational commitments to human rights, guaranteeing personal liberty (Article 23), protection from arbitrary arrest and detention (Article 23(2), the right to court access (Article 28), and safeguards against inhumane treatment (Article 24). These provisions are expressly designed to prevent recurrence of state abuses reminiscent of the Amin era, when detention without trial, enforced disappearances, and extra‑judicial executions were routine.
Judicial interpretation in Uganda has repeatedly affirmed that safeguards such as prompt production of a detainee before a court and access to counsel are non‑derogable. Under international law, similar protections against arbitrary detention and enforced disappearance are also reflected in instruments to which Uganda is a party, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
- The Ssekabira Case: Chronology and Legal Analysis
In early December 2025, reports emerged that Rev. Fr. Deusdedit Ssekabira, a Catholic priest in Masaka Diocese, was taken into custody by unidentified security operatives. Media accounts indicated that his location was unknown to family, diocesan officials, and legal counsel for nearly ten days — a pattern described by legal practitioners as tantamount to enforced disappearance, given the state’s failure to acknowledge custody or charges promptly.
Following sustained public and ecclesiastical pressure, the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) acknowledged holding him, initially alleging involvement in “violent subversive activities,” a claim lacking precise statutory grounding and widely criticized as securitization of dissent. In subsequent weeks, the matter was reframed as an economic offence involving alleged concealment of funds, after which a Masaka High Court granted bail in February 2026.
The trajectory of charges — from unclarified security claims to economic allegations — alongside prolonged absence of judicial oversight, raises substantive legal concerns about due process, equal protection, and executive discretion.
- Structural Implications for Constitutionalism
4.1 Arbitrary Detention and Due Process
The Ugandan Constitution requires that anyone arrested must be brought before a court “as soon as practicable,” generally construed within 48 hours. Failure to do so, absent clearly justified exceptions, constitutes a constitutional violation. In the Ssekabira case, the protracted period before public acknowledgment and judicial presentation represents a deviation from constitutional standards, undermining legal certainty and accountability.
Legal scholars generally regard prolonged custody without judicial scrutiny as degrading to the rule of law because it removes the judicial check on executive and security power, effectively enabling detention without meaningful oversight. Comparative constitutional jurisprudence emphasizes that military involvement in civilian detentions absent statutory authority further exacerbates the risk of rights violations.
4.2 Securitisation of Dissent
Invoking “subversive activities” as a basis for detention, particularly when statutory grounding is unclear, reflects the securitisation of social and political life. Routine political activity or dissent is framed as a threat to national security, justifying extraordinary measures and eroding civil liberties. Continuous use of such narratives risks subordinating legal norms to executive discretion.
4.3 Separation of Powers and Institutional Balance
The Ssekabira incident highlights tensions in Uganda’s separation of powers. Although the Constitution vests judicial independence and mandates oversight of deprivation of liberty, prolonged non-presentation may signal executive encroachment on judicial prerogatives, especially when law enforcement is dominated by security agencies with weak accountability mechanisms.
- Historical Continuities and Political Memory
5.1 Luwum’s Legacy and Normative Foundations
Archbishop Luwum’s resistance to arbitrary power was rooted in moral and legal critique of a state that operated above law. His martyrdom encapsulates the normative assertion that human dignity and rule of law must constrain state authority — a cornerstone of modern constitutionalism. The invocation of his legacy in public discourse embeds this claim into national identity and expectation.
5.2 Recurrence of State Practices
The resemblance between past abuses — extrajudicial detention, silencing of dissidents — and contemporary practices suggests that institutions, not only individuals, must embody constitutional restraint. The Ssekabira case signals that certain patterns of discretionary power persist in ways that compromise constitutional guarantees, even without implying a return to dictatorship.
- Conclusion
Janani Luwum Day should be more than a ceremonial tribute; it ought to serve as a critical barometer of constitutional fidelity in Uganda. The treatment of Rev. Fr. Ssekabira — involving prolonged detention, shifting charges, and delayed judicial oversight — poses serious questions about the institutional realization of legal safeguards enshrined in the 1995 Constitution.
Honoring Luwum’s legacy authentically requires not only remembrance but the active protection of all Ugandans subjected to arbitrary detention, known or unknown, reinforcing that law restrains authority rather than validating its abuse. Let this day remind us that human dignity, justice, and constitutional order are not abstract ideals but urgent obligations.
About The Author
