Capital punishment jurisprudence: a critical assessment of the Supreme Court of Uganda's judgment in Attorney General v Susan Kigula and 417 others

bibliographic database
Line

Periodical article

Title:	Capital punishment jurisprudence: a critical assessment of the Supreme Court of Uganda's judgment in Attorney General v Susan Kigula and 417 others
Author:	Sander, Barrie
Year:	2011
Periodical:	Journal of African Law (ISSN 0021-8553)
Volume:	55
Issue:	2
Pages:	261-279
Language:	English
Geographic term:	Nigeria
Subjects:	capital punishment supreme courts judgments
Abstract:	The Ugandan Supreme Court's decision in Attorney General v Susan Kigula & 417 Others ended a ten year constitutional challenge against capital punishment. The attorney general was appealing the Constitutional Court's declarations that a mandatory death penalty and a delay on death row of more than three years violate Uganda's Constitution. The respondents cross-appealed the Constitutional Court's declarations that the death penalty is constitutional and that hanging is an appropriate and therefore constitutional method of execution. The Supreme Court dismissed both the appeals and cross-appeals. This article summarizes the Supreme Court's findings and analyses the court's reasoning. It demonstrates that, while the court's reasoning is generally in line with the interpretations offered by international courts and human rights bodies, the court arguably missed an opportunity to take a bolder approach regarding the relationship between the death penalty and the prohibition on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, particularly in light of recent international trends. Notes, ref., sum. [Journal abstract]