Advancing Women's Rights: A Look At Ugandan Law

It has been 30 odd years since Uganda took bold steps to protect and enshrine strong provisions for the advancement of women in the Constitution. Since then, Uganda has witnessed a mix of remarkable advances in women's rights notwithstanding some niggling setbacks. The Constitution itself was groundbreaking: it embedded equality and non-discrimination, affirmed women's equality and rights, prohibited traditions that undermine women's status and mandated affirmative action to address historical imbalances. This framework has driven significant progress in political representation, protection from violence and some economic rights. Yet, deep-rooted challenges, such as customary practices, limited implementation, societal norms and recent judicial conservatism, have led to notable losses, especially in reproductive autonomy, divorce and full economic empowerment.

Gains in political participation and representation?

One of the clearest successes stems from the Constitution's push for gender balance. The Constitution mandates a woman member of Parliament each of our 146 districts. The Local Government Act also reserved at least one-third of seats for women in local councils. This affirmative action transformed women's visibility in politics. Before 1995, women held around 18% of parliamentary seats; today, they occupy about 34%, with women in top roles like Vice President, Prime Minister and Speaker of Parliament. These gains have influenced policy-making and decentralised governance, giving women a stronger voice in decisions affecting their lives.

Political representation aside, the representation of women in the Judiciary at all levels is quite exciting and certainly well ahead of the relative numbers of women in leadership in private legal practice.

Maternal healthcare

In 2020, the Constitutional Court delivered a landmark ruling in CEHURD v Attorney General, holding the government accountable for failing to provide basic maternal healthcare in public facilities, which contributed to the preventable deaths of two mothers during childbirth. The court ordered remedies including prioritised funding, damages to the families, and an implementation report to safeguard women's reproductive health rights. Ongoing monitoring is essential to assess whether these directives have birthed any joy in maternal care nationwide.

Protection from violence and harmful practices?

Legislation has directly tackled violence against women. The 2010 Domestic Violence Act criminalised physical, sexual, emotional, economic and psychological abuse, providing protection orders and remedies. This built on constitutional protections against dignity violations and women's rights. Similarly, the 2010 Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation ("FGM") Act outlawed FGM, with the Constitutional Court declaring the practice unconstitutional as torture and degrading treatment. These laws, combined with earlier Penal Code amendments, have reduced tolerance for gender-based violence, though enforcement remains uneven. The 2009 Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act has in operation on top of helping curbing trafficking of persons, also assisted combat forms of domestic servitude, child labour and child marriages.

Inheritance and property rights reforms?

Judicial decisions have chipped away at discriminatory laws. In cases like Uganda Association of Women Lawyers v Attorney General (2004) and Law & Advocacy for Women v Attorney General (2007), the Constitutional Court struck down male-preference rules in succession and gendered adultery provisions, enforcing equality. Similarly, the case of Mifumi v Attorney General outlawed claims for refund of bride price upon divorce.

The Land Act protected women's security of occupancy of family land, required spousal consent for transactions and prohibited discriminatory customs denying land rights. Similarly, the Mortgage Act requires spousal consent to mortgage the matrimonial home. These steps strengthened women's social security over their homes as well as their economic security in a country where land is central to livelihoods. While the language of these provisions is gender neutral, in practice the law has operated to protect women.

Matrimonial property at divorce?

Courts have recognised non-monetary contributions (e.g., homemaking, childcare) as a contribution to building family wealth and therefore a factor in sharing of assets upon divorce. This aligns with equal rights in marriage and dissolution under the Constitution. In Rwabinumi v Bahimbisomwe (Supreme Court, 2013), the Court clarified that the Constitution ensures equal treatment but not automatic 50/50 sharing between husband and wife upon divorce. Sharing of property upon divorce depends on proven contributions, including indirect ones. However, the approach has limitations. In Ambayo v Aserua (Court of Appeal, 2022), the court emphasised evidence of contributions. While the court recognised unpaid care work, it docked the wife a few points on account of her husband having contributed to her completing primary level education. While this moves away from rigid formulas, it risks disadvantaging homemakers who struggle to "prove" their inputs in quantifiable terms. A marriage cannot be reduced to accounting terms with spouses being required to track who did what, when and why. The discounting or under-valuation of unpaid domestic and care work remains unfair, as it often falls disproportionately on women and perpetuates economic inequality despite constitutional equality principles.

Some losses and setbacks?

Not all efforts succeeded. In CEHURD v Attorney General (2025), the Constitutional Court rejected a push for safe abortion access the majority despite constitutional provisions contemplating authorised terminations. A strong minority dissent highlighted risks to women's life and health. This leaves Uganda with highly restrictive laws in practice, contributing to unsafe abortions and maternal risks.

Similarly, in Innocent Ngobi Ndiko v Attorney General (2025), the Court rejected no-fault divorce, refusing to introduce "irretrievable breakdown" as a ground. It prioritised preserving marriage as an institution and deferred to conservative religious views and the now out of touch reports that informed the constitution making process. The Court kept fault-based requirements that bind women in abusive or broken marriages. Perhaps not surprisingly, the need for more contemporary, liberalised and certainly more private divorce proceedings is also being felt by men, who have traditionally been in a favoured position. After all, dirty linen is dirty linen and washing it is best done in private. Besides, often there are children of marriage, the sweet innocent souls, collateral damage of love gone sour.

Also lost was the case of Women's Pro Bono Initiative v Attorney General which sought to ban polygamy as a violation of women's rights to equality in marriage. The court took the view that entry into polygamous marriages was a choice of consenting adults and a cultural and religious right, not to be interfered with. For the wider questions about some negative effects of polygamy the court suggested that the solution lay in strengthening women's property rights in the marital regimes than banning polygamy.

Broader challenges persist: stalled bills like the Marriage and Divorce Bill stuck for over 30 years now, gaps in implementing land rights (only about 16% of registered land in women's names) and ongoing customary biases that make implementation of statutory rights difficult. Economic disparities remain, women face barriers to formal jobs, lower earnings and limited control over resources, while gender-based violence and persistence of child marriage hinder progress.

We must also tip our hats to the establishment of the Equal Opportunities Commission though it is not clear if it has handled any cases of gender discrimination. The dearth of sexual harassment cases in Uganda certainly does not speak to the high fidelity of Ugandan men. There are much darker reasons for Uganda having no equivalent of the recent inquiries on Judge Mbenenge in South Africa.

Looking forward?

Uganda's journey since 1995 shows the power of a progressive Constitution, an activist judiciary and civil society in some areas, alongside the limits when courts defer to Parliament or tradition in intimate matters like reproduction and marriage exit. Women's rights organisations continue advocating for full implementation, better enforcement and new, improved laws. True equality requires bridging the gap between legal wins and everyday reality, through education, resources and cultural shifts, to ensure gains are protected.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.