The doctrine of separation of powers within the three branches of government in Uganda and its human rights implications

Abstract

The study sought to assess the doctrine of Separation of Powers within the three branches of government in Uganda and its implications on human rights. It gave a background to this concept and contemporary understandings of the same. The specific objectives included critically examining the doctrine of separation of powers and its applicability in the Ugandan context, to analyse, from a human rights perspective Uganda’s constitutional framework in line with the doctrine of separation of powers and the system of checks and balances and to discuss, based on the doctrine of the separation of powers, the challenges, and threats to an effective system of checks and balances. A sample of 50 respondents was selected, where questionnaires, interviews, and documentary analysis provided the data needed to answer the research questions. Major findings are given based on the objectives of the study. They revealed that the three arms of government are seen to clash within themselves which spills into human rights abuse. Other respondents felt that the court should be left to operate because states give up part of their sovereign status when they allow the court to operate in their countries. Factors that influenced these emerging tensions were identified to be mostly political. The researcher recommended that the government be more impartial in its operations putting respect for human rights first. The missing link is the unbiased co-existence of the three arms of government. There are inherent tensions between them. That notwithstanding, no concept should cause a blind eye to be turned to every state's primary responsibility, which is the protection and promotion of human rights.