By Aggrey Baba
Human rights activist and Executive Director of the Centre for Constitutional Governance (CCG), Dr Sarah Bireete, has criticised the government and the security forces for what she describes as an illegal and unconstitutional occupation of the home of National Unity Platform (NUP) leader and former presidential candidate, Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu (Bobi Wine).
Posting on her official X (formerly Twitter) handle, Bireete said the actions of the police and the military at Bobi Wine’s residence in Magere, Wakiso District, violate clear provisions of the 1995 Constitution, particularly Articles 26 and 27, which protect the right to property and the right to privacy.
Her remarks follow weeks of heightened security deployment around the Magere home after the January 15, 2026 general elections, whose results have been rejected by the opposition.
According to him, security forces sealed off his home immediately after the polls, effectively placing him and his family under house arrest. He later revealed through his social media platforms that on the night of January 16, he fled the home after soldiers raided the premises, disconnected electricity and disabled surveillance cameras.
Kyagulanyi said he acted on what he described as “credible intelligence” from sources within the military, warning him of plans to harm him.
On January 24, his wife, Ms Barbie Itungo Kyagulanyi, publicly narrated her ordeal, saying soldiers broke into their home at night (January 23, 2026), assaulted her and subjected her to degrading treatment, including undressing her. She said the incident left her traumatized and she was later admitted to Nsambya Hospital for treatment.
Despite public outrage and calls for accountability, the NUP leader said in another statement issued on February 3rd that the army had gone on to fully occupy his home. As of now, the security deployment at the Magere residence remains in place.
Dr Bireete argues that even if the state considers Kyagulanyi’s home a matter of national security, the law provides clear procedures that must be followed.
She points to Article 26(2)(b) of the Constitution, which governs compulsory acquisition or taking possession of private property. Under this provision, the state can only take over property if it is done under a law that provides for prompt, fair and adequate compensation before possession is taken, and guarantees the affected person access to a court of law.
“What is happening in Magere does not meet any of these constitutional thresholds. There has been no compensation, no court order, and no lawful process communicated to the owner of the property,” Bireete wrote.
She added that the continued presence of the army at Kyagulanyi’s home also directly violates Article 27, which protects the right to privacy of the person, home and other property. The Article explicitly prohibits unlawful entry into a person’s premises and any interference with the privacy of their home or communications.
“In simple terms, you can’t just camp in someone’s house because you have power. That is exactly what the Constitution was designed to prevent,” Bireete added.
She further argued that the occupation of the Magere home sets a dangerous precedent, especially in a politically charged post-election environment, warning that normalising such actions weakens constitutionalism and exposes ordinary citizens to similar abuses.
“If this can be done to a high-profile opposition leader under the full glare of the public, imagine what can be done to an ordinary Ugandan with no platform,” Bireete said.
She challenged the government to either regularize its actions through lawful means or vacate the property immediately. If the state believes the home is of strategic importance, she says, the only lawful option is to formally acquire it through compulsory acquisition, pay fair and adequate compensation in advance, and allow the owner to challenge the decision in court.
“Let government buy the house if it wants it. What is unacceptable is this illegal occupation that treats the Constitution as optional.”
The government and security agencies have not issued a detailed public explanation justifying the continued deployment at the Magere home.
For Dr Bireete, the issue goes beyond Kyagulanyi as an individual and speaks to the broader struggle for the rule of law.
“This is about whether the Constitution still means what. If Articles 26 and 27 can be ignored so casually, then no Ugandan’s home is truly safe,” she added. (For comments on this story, get back to us on 0705579994 [WhatsApp line], 0779411734 & 041 4674611 or email us at mulengeranews@gmail.com).
