The Office of the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) and the Uganda Police Force (UPF) have raised concerns about provisions in the proposed Forensic and Scientific Analytical Bill, warning that it could undermine existing mandates of key criminal justice and regulatory institutions.
The Bill, which has been tabled before Parliament three times, seeks to establish a legal framework to regulate forensic and scientific analytical services in Uganda. It proposes the Government Analytical Laboratory (GAL) as a national referral center and creates a Department of Inspection and Legal Services under the Ministry of Internal Affairs to oversee standards, licensing, and compliance.
Officials from both the ODPP and UPF argue that the proposals risk concentrating excessive authority within a single institution. They have also questioned the designation of GAL as the central body for forensic services, citing potential overlaps with the roles of other agencies.
In a submission on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions, John Baptist Asiimwe said the Bill, in its current form, conflicts with the constitutional and statutory mandates of law enforcement bodies. He referenced Article 212(c) of the Constitution and provisions of the Police Act, which assign the responsibility of crime prevention and investigation to the UPF.
“As a result, anything to do with law enforcement and investigation is a preserve of the police,” Asiimwe said, adding that existing laws such as the Identification of Offenders Act already provide for forensic processes including fingerprinting and suspect identification.
Andrew Mubiru, Director of Forensic Science at the UPF, said the police had aligned their position with the ODPP’s submission, which has been shared with the Office of the Attorney General and Parliament’s Committee on Defence and Internal Affairs.
“We suggest there should be a harmonised approach to avoid crippling the functions of other key institutions,” Mubiru said.
The Ministry of Internal Affairs has defended the Bill, arguing that Uganda lacks a comprehensive legal framework to regulate forensic services. It also highlights gaps such as the absence of a national poison information center and limited coordination in data management and quality control.
However, the ODPP disputes this claim, noting that several aspects of forensic and analytical services are already governed under existing laws and institutions. These include laboratories operated by agencies responsible for standards, drug regulation, environmental monitoring, agriculture, and wildlife, among others.
Asiimwe warned that consolidating these diverse functions under a single framework could disrupt specialized services across sectors. “Regulation of scientific analytical services covers a wide range of disciplines that cannot be effectively managed under one center,” he said.
The ODPP also raised legal concerns about the Bill’s proposal to formally establish GAL, noting that the laboratory is already operational under the Ministry of Internal Affairs. It warned that re-establishing the institution through legislation could create ambiguity over its legal status and potentially affect the admissibility of past forensic reports.
In response, Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka said any work previously undertaken by GAL would remain valid and admissible once the law comes into force, addressing concerns about retrospective legal challenges.
The ODPP has called for broader consultations with stakeholders before the Bill is passed, warning that failure to do so could lead to unintended consequences for Uganda’s criminal justice system and scientific services sector.
