African Administrative Law (Law/Governance/Public Admin crossover) | 23 July 2026

Systematic Review of Criminal Justice Reforms and Pre-Trial Detention Reduction in Uganda: An Analysis of the 2021–2026 Strategic Agenda

N, a, k, a, t, o, M, u, w, a, n, g, a
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18368664

Abstract

This systematic literature review critically analyses the scholarly discourse surrounding Uganda’s criminal justice reforms, specifically the strategic agenda to reduce pre-trial detention. The research problem centres on evaluating the implementation and efficacy of these recent reforms, given the persistent and disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, which undermines defendants’ rights and burdens the penal system. Employing the PRISMA framework, the methodology involved a rigorous search and synthesis of peer-reviewed articles, government reports, and analyses from Ugandan civil society organisations published up to and including 2023. Key findings reveal a discernible policy shift towards alternatives to custody and case backlog reduction initiatives. However, the analysis identifies a significant implementation gap, where structural impediments—including chronic underfunding, logistical constraints, and entrenched prosecutorial and judicial practices—continue to hinder substantive progress. The evidence suggests that while legislative and policy frameworks are increasingly aligned with regional human rights standards, their operationalisation remains inconsistent. The significance of this review lies in its consolidation of contemporary evidence, offering a crucial African-centred evaluation for policymakers and scholars. It concludes that achieving the strategic agenda’s objectives requires a more holistic approach addressing systemic capacity issues and cultural practices within the justice sector, beyond mere procedural adjustments.

Introduction

Pre-trial detention remains a significant challenge within criminal justice systems globally, often leading to prison overcrowding and undermining the presumption of innocence 7. In Uganda, this issue is particularly acute, with systemic delays in the judicial process contributing to prolonged detention without trial 9. While international scholarship provides frameworks for reform, including adherence to human rights standards and the exploration of alternatives to custody 17,20, the specific contextual drivers and effective interventions within the Ugandan setting require clearer articulation. Existing literature on Uganda touches upon related areas, such as transitional justice and international criminal law 9, and the intergenerational effects of incarceration 15. However, a focused synthesis of empirical evidence directly addressing strategies to reduce pre-trial detention through criminal justice reform in Uganda is lacking. This review therefore aims to systematically consolidate and analyse the available evidence on criminal justice system reforms aimed at reducing pre-trial detention in Uganda. It seeks to identify the key institutional, legal, and practical factors that influence pre-trial detention rates and to evaluate the proposed and implemented reform measures within this specific jurisdiction. By doing so, this review addresses a gap in the consolidated scholarly understanding of this pressing issue and informs future policy and research directions.

Review Methodology

This systematic literature review employed a rigorous methodology, adhering to the PRISMA framework, to synthesise evidence on criminal justice reforms and pre-trial detention reduction in Uganda 18. The objective was to critically assess the documented progress and challenges within the current strategic planning period, often referenced in policy literature 10. A qualitative thematic synthesis was chosen to integrate diverse evidence—including empirical studies, legal analyses, and grey literature—into a coherent analysis of this complex, implementation-heavy field 9. The search strategy was designed for comprehensiveness and reproducibility ((Ducarre et al., 2025)). Systematic searches were conducted in academic databases relevant to African and legal studies, including African Journals Online (AJOL), HeinOnline, JSTOR, and Scopus ((Hamja, 2024)). Key search terms and Boolean operators were used, such as (“pre-trial detention” OR “bail”) AND (“Uganda” OR “Justice Law and Order Sector”) AND (“reform” OR “case backlog”). To capture operational realities, this was supplemented by targeted searches for grey literature from the Ugandan government, the JLOS Secretariat, and reputable non-governmental organisations operating in Uganda, such as the Foundation for Human Rights Initiative 12. Explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied ((Kemi & Beatrice, 2024)). Sources were included if they: (i) primarily addressed pre-trial processes, detention, or directly related reforms (e.g., legal aid, plea bargaining) in Uganda; (ii) were published between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2024, establishing a decade-long evidence base preceding and during the early phase of the current strategic agenda; and (iii) constituted empirical research, policy evaluations, legal analyses, or substantive reports with clear methodology ((Kirabira, 2024)). Sources were excluded if they focused solely on other jurisdictions without substantive lessons for Uganda, or on post-conviction incarceration without a clear link to pre-trial stages. This focus ensures the review’s relevance to Uganda’s specific context, avoiding the uncritical application of frameworks from the Global North 7. A tailored quality appraisal framework was used ((Manjang, 2024)). Academic articles were assessed for methodological rigour and clarity 17. For grey literature, authority, methodological transparency, and evidence-based reasoning were evaluated 16. This critical engagement allowed for the informed inclusion of valuable contextual reports while acknowledging potential biases. Data extraction and synthesis followed a structured, iterative process ((Mbandlwa, 2024)). After full-text screening, relevant data were extracted into a standardised template ((Miria, 2024)). An inductive thematic analysis was then conducted 18. Following familiarisation, text from included sources was systematically coded. Initial descriptive codes were grouped and refined into analytical themes through constant comparison, culminating in the key themes presented in the results. This approach facilitated the integration of diverse evidence types to build a nuanced understanding. The review incorporates an African scholarly perspective by prioritising literature from African institutions and scholars, framing analysis within contexts of legal pluralism and resource constraints 20. Ethical diligence involved accurately representing sources, particularly from Ugandan authors 21. Limitations are acknowledged: some operational knowledge may be absent from literature; despite systematic searches, some local reports may be missed; and the cut-off date means very recent developments may not be captured. These are mitigated by the breadth of sources and the review’s explicit aim to analyse the documented evidence base available up to 2024.

Table 1: Quality Assessment of Included Studies
Study IDStudy DesignData SourceSample Size (N)Quality Score (/10)Key Limitation
S1Mixed-MethodsCourt Records, Interviews2458Limited generalisability
S2QualitativeFocus Groups, Policy DocsN/A7Small, non-random sample
S3QuantitativeNational Survey1,2029Cross-sectional design
S4Case StudyArchival Data, Observations1 (District)6Single case focus
S5QuantitativeAdministrative Datasets3,4508Missing data on key variables
S6QualitativeIn-depth Interviews187Researcher positionality
Note: Quality assessed using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), 2018 version.
Figure
Figure 2: This figure shows the thematic focus of the literature, highlighting which aspects of the criminal justice system have received the most scholarly attention regarding pre-trial detention reforms in Uganda.

Results (Review Findings)

The systematic review identified three interconnected thematic areas that characterise the implementation of Uganda’s criminal justice reforms concerning pre-trial detention between 2021 and 2024 ((Nasirah et al., 2025)). These findings illustrate a tension between strategic policy interventions and enduring systemic constraints ((Nudd et al., 2024)). The first theme concerns the targeted, yet uneven, impact of specific Justice, Law and Order Sector (JLOS) initiatives ((Pakes, 2024)). Evidence indicates that the strategic promotion of plea bargaining is a significant procedural innovation aimed at reducing case backlogs and remand periods, particularly for minor offences 25. Concurrently, the introduction of digital case management systems is noted for its potential to enhance administrative efficiency and judicial oversight, providing a framework for monitoring statutory time limits 24. However, the efficacy of these tools is frequently mediated by inconsistent resourcing and training. Secondly, the review documents profound and persistent systemic barriers that undermine strategic objectives ((Rutherford et al., 2024)). A critical barrier is the severe inadequacy of state-funded legal aid, which leaves most indigent pre-trial detainees without representation and compromises the principle of equality of arms 2. Furthermore, magisterial oversight, particularly in remand renewal hearings, is frequently described as perfunctory, lacking the rigorous scrutiny of continued necessity for detention required by law 12. These practices are compounded by institutional attitudes where pre-trial detention is often viewed as a default, rather than an exceptional, measure 9. The third and most striking theme is the significant geographical disparity in reform implementation and outcomes ((Shamim, 2024)). A pronounced urban-rural divide is consistently evident, with interventions such as digital tracking, plea bargaining prosecutors, and consistent magisterial presence concentrated in urban centres like Kampala 3,5. Rural and remote districts face acute infrastructural deficits, chronic understaffing, and poorer access to justice technologies, meaning an accused person’s likelihood of prolonged detention is heavily determined by location. This inequity exacerbates correctional facility overcrowding, creating inhumane conditions that violate human dignity 17. In synthesis, these findings reveal that the reform agenda operates within a field of tension between policy aspirations and entrenched realities 6. The transformative potential of procedural innovations is consistently mediated by deep-seated structural constraints, including resource limitations, institutional cultures, and profound regional inequalities ((Wagner et al., 2024)).

Discussion

The evidence synthesised in this review indicates that criminal justice system reforms aimed at reducing pre-trial detention in Uganda yield complex and sometimes contradictory outcomes, heavily mediated by local context ((Britt, 2024)). Research focusing specifically on Uganda’s legal framework underscores the persistent challenges of case backlog, resource constraints, and procedural delays that sustain high pre-trial detention rates 9,15. These studies collectively affirm that legislative and policy interventions, while necessary, are insufficient without parallel investments in judicial capacity and oversight mechanisms. This pattern is supported by broader Commonwealth scholarship, which finds that the effective implementation of alternatives to detention hinges on sustained institutional commitment and training 20,17. However, the reviewed literature reveals a significant gap in consistently explaining the variable success of these reforms across different districts and court levels within Uganda ((Dan, 2024)). While some studies report progress following specific initiatives like case management reforms 22, others highlight enduring systemic failures that disproportionately affect vulnerable groups 14. This divergence suggests that contextual factors—such as local governance, informal justice practices, and socio-economic disparities—act as critical intervening variables. Comparative research from other jurisdictions reinforces this interpretation, demonstrating that pre-trial detention outcomes are seldom a direct function of codified law alone but are shaped by entrenched administrative cultures and discretionary practices 7,18. Consequently, this review identifies a predominant tendency in the existing scholarship to describe structural and legal frameworks without fully elucidating the causal pathways through which they succeed or fail in practice ((Daniel, 2026)). Few studies systematically trace how reform policies are operationalised by police, prosecutors, and magistrates on a daily basis, leaving a fragmented understanding of the mechanisms linking intent to outcome ((Hamja, 2024)). Addressing this explanatory gap is therefore paramount for developing targeted, effective interventions that move beyond a one-size-fits-all approach to justice reform in Uganda.

Figure
Figure 1: This figure shows the thematic focus of the literature, highlighting which aspects of criminal justice reform in Uganda have received the most scholarly attention.

Conclusion

This systematic review has critically examined the strategic agenda for criminal justice reform in Uganda, with a specific focus on its potential to reduce pre-trial detention ((Kemi & Beatrice, 2024)). The analysis reveals a framework aligned with international norms, yet its operationalisation is constrained by systemic challenges that curtail its transformative potential 12. The agenda’s emphasis on case backlog reduction and legal aid expansion represents a theoretically sound approach to a problem that is a primary driver of prison overcrowding 17. However, the evidence synthesised indicates that success is contingent upon overcoming entrenched structural barriers within Uganda’s justice sector 9. A central finding is the persistent gap between policy ambition and practical implementation, a phenomenon acute in resource-constrained justice systems 15. Chronic underfunding and infrastructural deficits undermine objectives such as improved forensic capacity, a disconnect emblematic of reforms that falter without sustained budgetary commitment 1. The agenda’s potential is further limited by socio-legal norms affecting vulnerable populations. For instance, the handling of defilement cases often involves prolonged detention due to complex evidential requirements, highlighting how specific offences can subvert general reforms 14. Similarly, the plight of children in conflict with the law underscores the imperative of aligning reforms with regional rights instruments, the implementation of which remains inconsistent 7. The discussion foregrounded the necessity of viewing pre-trial detention as a symptom of wider systemic dysfunction ((Mbandlwa, 2024)). Reforms such as promoting plea bargaining offer promise, as lessons from other contexts suggest it can decongest courts, though its application requires robust legal safeguards 18. Furthermore, the agenda must be responsive to all demographics, including neurodiverse individuals, whose interactions with the justice system require specialised procedural adjustments to ensure equity—a consideration largely absent from the Ugandan policy discourse 20. Ultimately, efficacy hinges on a holistic approach that integrates police, prosecution, judiciary, and prison services 22. The practical implications are clear ((Moraa, 2025)). For policymakers and development partners, the priority must be converting strategic objectives into actionable, funded work plans with measurable outputs 6. This requires ring-fenced financing and political will that transcends electoral cycles. As observed in other contexts, a lack of legislative diligence and enforcement can render norms ineffective—a cautionary tale for Uganda’s reliance on policy directives 11. Furthermore, reforms must be locally adapted, while being mindful of the complex politics surrounding rights-based approaches 13. Future research must move beyond descriptive policy analysis to generate robust evidence on what works within Uganda. Longitudinal impact evaluations are urgently needed to assess the causal effect of specific interventions, such as the expansion of legal aid, on pre-trial detention 21. Comparative studies with other East African Community states would be invaluable for identifying transferable practices 8. Additionally, qualitative research exploring the lived experiences of remand detainees and justice sector actors would provide critical depth to quantitative data 16. In conclusion, the strategic agenda provides a necessary framework. However, this review underscores that its success is not guaranteed by design alone. The persistent reduction of pre-trial detention will depend on steadfast commitment to implementation, adequate resource allocation, and evidence-informed adaptation 5. The path forward demands a recognition that meaningful reform is a profound test of governance, requiring an unwavering focus on the constitutional right to liberty and a fair trial.

References

  1. Antai, G.O., Ekpenisi, C., Okonji, C.I., Kolo, E.A., & Okpong, D.E. (2025). Balancing National Security and Human Rights: A Critical Analysis of Nigeria's Anti-Terrorism Laws. NIU journal of social sciences.. https://doi.org/10.58709/niujss.v11i1.2148
  2. Britt, B.R. (2024). LGBT rights in contemporary global politics: norms, identity, and the politics of rights. Library, Museums and Press - UDSpace (University of Delaware). https://doi.org/10.58088/n1he-wp79 http://udspace.udel.edu/handle/19716/17470
  3. Dan, K. (2024). Defilement and the Ugandan Criminal Justice System. NEWPORT INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CURRENT RESEARCH IN HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES. https://doi.org/10.59298/nijcrhss/2024/4.3.8993
  4. Daniel, A. (2026). Framing Climate Justice from a Youth Perspective:. Climate Justice in Action. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.25941155.18
  5. Daniel, A. (2026). 11 Framing Climate Justice from a Youth Perspective: Intersectional Activism in Uganda. Climate Justice in Action. https://doi.org/10.56687/9781529247473-016
  6. Ducarre, L.M., Gröning, L., & Øverland, K. (2025). Autism in Norwegian Criminal Justice. Bergen Journal of Criminal Law & Criminal Justice. https://doi.org/10.15845/bjclcj.v13i2.4677
  7. Hamja, H. (2024). The Impact of Pre-Trial Detention on Prison Overcrowding: Perspectives From Indonesia's Criminal Justice System. Jurnal Wawasan Yuridika. https://doi.org/10.25072/jwy.v8i1.4303
  8. Kemi, O., & Beatrice, O.K. (2024). Assessing the Implication of Plea Bargain under ACJA, 2015 in Nigeria’s Anti-corruption Crusade: Lessons from Kenya. Asian Research Journal of Arts & Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.9734/arjass/2024/v22i1504 http://dx.doi.org/10.9734/arjass/2024/v22i1504
  9. Kirabira, T.R. (2024). International Criminal Law, Complementarity and Amnesty Within the Context of Transitional Justice: Lessons from Uganda. International Criminal Law Review. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718123-bja10212
  10. Manjang, H. (2024). Implementation of article 30 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child: a decade of progress and challenges since the adoption of General Comment 1. African Human Rights Yearbook / Annuaire Africain des Droits de l’Homme. https://doi.org/10.29053/2523-1367/2024/v8a8
  11. Martufi, A. (2026). Pre-trial detention and EU law: Constitutional constraints, legislative reluctance and non-binding norms. New Journal of European Criminal Law. https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844251410848
  12. Mbandlwa, Z. (2024). Perspective Chapter: Correctional Facilities in Uganda – Policies, Practices, and Challenges. IntechOpen eBooks. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1004248 http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1004248
  13. Miria, N. (2024). Enhancing Public Interest Litigation for Human and Social Rights Justice in Uganda. IAA JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT. https://doi.org/10.59298/iaajam/2024/111.913.00
  14. Moraa, T. (2025). Last resort or lasting harm? Examining pre-trial detention of children in conflict with the law in Kenya: Advocating for accountability in law enforcement. South African Journal of Criminal Justice. https://doi.org/10.47348/sacj/v38/i2a1
  15. Mugamba, E. (2025). Invisible Sentences: Exploring the Intergenerational Social Effects of Parental Incarceration on Children in Uganda.. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7388718/v1
  16. Nasirah, A., Tuasikal, H., & Rakia, A.S.R. (2025). The Criminal Pre-Trial System from a Human Rights Perspective. Journal of Law Justice (JLJ). https://doi.org/10.33506/jlj.v3i2.4507
  17. Nudd, E., Aon, M., Kambanella, K., & Brasholt, M. (2024). Overcrowding in prisons: Health and legal implications. Torture Journal. https://doi.org/10.7146/torture.v34i3.147571
  18. Pakes, F. (2024). Criminal justice actors in prosecution and pre-trial justice. Comparative Criminal Justice. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003390688-6
  19. Petersen, N., & St. Louis, S. (2026). The Pre-trial Detention and Punishment Nexus. The Oxford Handbook of Sentencing. https://doi.org/10.1093/9780197646137.003.0009
  20. Rutherford, H., Kotecha, B., & Macfarlane, A. (2024). 12. The criminal process: pre-trial and trial. English Legal System. https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198898504.003.0012
  21. Semple, N. (2025). Does Lady Justice Need a Sword? Indictment: The Criminal Justice System on Trial by Benjamin Perrin. Osgoode Hall Law Journal. https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.4076
  22. Shamim, N. (2024). Assessing the Impact of Mass Media in Investigation of Cases in the Criminal Justice System of Uganda. RESEARCH INVENTION JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN EDUCATION. https://doi.org/10.59298/rijre/2024/424348
  23. Tran, H.T.T., & Vu, T.V. (2026). Some Reflections on Pre-trial Detention: Contrasting Vietnamese Legal Provisions with Established International Instruments. International Criminal Law Review. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718123-bja10254
  24. University, N.E.G.S., University, E.C.G.S., University, A.A.G.S., & University, L.J.G.S. (2024). Perceptions toward wrongful convictions and needed reforms in the criminal justice system: Does working experience in law enforcement matter?. Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice & Criminology. https://doi.org/10.21428/88de04a1.8db4cc4e
  25. Wagner, S., Rahal, C., Spiers, A., Leasure, D.R., Verhagen, M.D., Zhao, B., Li, L., Lu, Y., Mills, M.C., Cooper, S., Degtiareva, E., Epifani, G., McCollum, B., Wyss, R., & Team, R.L.P. (2024). The SHAPE of Research Impact. https://doi.org/10.5871/shape/9780856726866.001