Activists push for non-custodial alternatives for minor offenses

Human rights activists have called for the implementation of non-custodial sentences to address Uganda’s prison congestion.
The Commissioner of Prisons, Mr Apollo Baker Asinga, noted that between 2014 and 2015, the total prison population was about 42,619, but this number has since increased to more than 56,600 inmates. 
“We have a very big problem of congestion, which cannot be addressed by infrastructure development. It can never be addressed by building prisons and having more prisoners. Those I think are short-term interventions and they cannot do much,” he said.
Mr Asinga further stated that solving the problem must involve the police, Judiciary, and community.
He was speaking in Kampala on Tuesday at a meeting convened by Penal Reform International, a non-profit organisation promoting effective criminal justice systems.
READ: Bail saga: Byabashaija decries congestion in prisons
The meeting brought together stakeholders such as the police, the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Ministry of Gender to discuss solutions.
Dr Sylvia Namubiru, the chief executive officer of Legal Aid Service Providers Network (LASPNET), noted that as of April, 46.2 percent of more than 70,000 prisoners were pre-trial detainees, exceeding the capacity of the prison system.
“Among the proposed alternatives we came up with included community service programmes that allow offenders to serve their sentences through community work, court fines imposing financial penalties instead of imprisonment, issuing formal warnings, compensations of victims by offenders and restitution mandating offenders to make amends to victims,” Dr Namubiru explained.
READ: Embrace alternatives to custodial sentences to curb prison congestion
However, High Court Judge Henrietta Wolayo noted that the implementation of these alternative punishments to non-custodial sentences is limited to only petty offences such as trespass, assault, child neglect, and petty theft, excluding grave cases like murder, robbery, and rape.
“Those are the only offences where reconciliation is permissible. There are no rules of reconciliation in the High Court in criminal cases much as Article 126 of the Constitution permits it, so the recurring theme under the rules is if reconciliation is only for misdemeanours and not for others as the court does not try felony,” Justice Wolayo explained.
He further noted that the Constitution does not differentiate between cases covered by the High Court and those by the magistrate courts. However, with the culture of reconciliation rules, they restrict such orders to magistrate courts.
The judge further noted that there is a need to have in-depth interactions with the Judiciary to raise awareness about the available non-custodial alternatives in the High Court under different laws and guidelines.
[email protected]