Government has defended its decision to keep flexible oversight measures in the proposed Forensic and Scientific Analytical Services Bill, 2025, despite growing concerns about private laboratories, overlapping mandates and the reliability of forensic evidence in criminal cases.
Appearing before the Defence and Internal Affairs Committee on March 19, 2026, the Minister of Internal Affairs, Gen David Muhoozi, presented legal guidance from the Attorney General, Kiryowa Kiwanuka, showing that government is not ready to introduce stricter legal controls.
The meeting, chaired by Wilson Kajwengye, focused on resolving disputed clauses in the Bill, especially those touching on the regulation of forensic laboratories and their role in investigations.
The proposed law follows the withdrawal of the Forensic Evidence Bill, 2024, which government said required major revisions that would have changed its original purpose. The new draft allows private laboratories to carry out forensic and scientific tests under a licensing system, instead of limiting such work to state agencies.
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions had earlier warned that allowing private firms to handle forensic material could break the chain of custody and weaken trust in court outcomes. However, government insists regulation, not restriction, is the solution.
“I note that several private laboratories in Uganda currently conduct forensic and analytical work without any form of regulation or oversight,” Muhoozi said.
Under the Bill, all laboratories will be licensed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and required to operate independently. “An analytical laboratory shall… act independently and shall not be subject to the direction or control of any person,” the Attorney General advised.
Members of Parliament, however, questioned whether the safeguards are strong enough. Bukooli Island County MP, Peter Okeyoh, argued that limiting forensic services to government bodies would deny citizens a fair hearing.
“A person will say… I need another confirmatory test. GAL has tested, maybe police has tested, but he says no, I need another,” Okeyoh said.
The Solicitor General, Pius Perry Biribonwoha, supported the need for independent opinions in court. “Someone can ask for a second opinion. I do not think we can do much by saying a report from this lab shall be conclusive,” he said.
Concerns also arose over possible conflicts of interest, especially with the Ministry’s Department of Inspection and Legal Services being named as regulator. In response, government clarified that its role will be limited.
“Its role would not extend to the regulation or direction of criminal investigations, which remain the mandate of the Uganda Police Force and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions,” Muhoozi said.
Government also rejected calls to make international accreditation compulsory. “International accreditation… is voluntary in nature and therefore, cannot be imposed as a mandatory legal requirement,” he added.
Instead, authorities plan to adopt global standards gradually through administrative processes.
On fears of duplication, particularly with the Government Analytical Laboratory, the Attorney General said the planned forensic database will support, not replace, existing systems. “The Bill does not seek to replicate existing biometric or identity databases but rather to supplement them with scientific and forensic data,” the advice states.
Integration with systems such as fingerprint and facial recognition technology will also be handled administratively. “Such integration is primarily a matter of administrative and technical implementation rather than statutory mandate,” Muhoozi noted.
The Bill maintains the Government Analytical Laboratory as the national referral centre while expanding its mandate to include poison control, making it the National Poison Information and Control Centre focused on coordination and technical support.
