An Evaluation of the Practice of Plea Bargaining in Uganda since 2017

Plea bargaining has become a central feature of Uganda's criminal justice system. Introduced on a pilot basis and formalised by the Judicature (Plea Bargain) Rules 2016, it was rolled out across the country from 2017 as a flagship response to the chronic problems of case backlog and prison congestion. This article evaluates the practice of plea bargaining in Uganda since 2017. It sets out the concept, rationale and critiques of plea bargaining and the international and comparative framework; it examines the Ugandan legal framework, comprising the Plea Bargain Rules, the constitutional fair-trial guarantees, and the procedural statutes, the Trial on Indictments Act Cap 25, the Magistrates Courts Act Cap 19, the Penal Code Act Cap 128 and the Evidence Act Cap 8; and it analyses the practice and the judicial treatment of plea bargaining through a body of case law, including Uganda v Atandu, Uganda v Adritia, Uganda v Nkurunziza, Rwabugande v Uganda and Aharikundira v Uganda, together with the comparative authority of Santobello v New York, Brady v United States and R v Goodyear. The article argues that plea bargaining has delivered real gains in the speed of justice and the decongestion of prisons, but that these gains carry risks, to the voluntariness of pleas, to the position of unrepresented accused and of victims, and to the quality of justice, which the present framework does not fully address. It recommends assured legal representation, a firmer statutory footing, a defined role for victims, stronger safeguards against coercion, and careful monitoring so that plea bargaining serves justice and not merely the reduction of backlog.