The issue of life imprisonment is always a contentious one. Some people
argue that life imprisonment should mean what it means, namely 'wholelife'.
In Uganda, life imprisonment continues to mean imprisonment of 20
years. However, in 2005 the Constitutional Court ruled that life imprisonment
should mean'the whole of a person's life'. This decision is not yet
law, because the particular case is on appeal before the Supreme Court,
which will either uphold the Constitutional Court's ruling or not. This
article deals with the constitutionality of long prison sentences that the
Constitutional Court suggested could be imposed to avoid prisoners being
released after 20 years. It also argues that the Supreme Court should reject
the Constitutional Court's ruling that life imprisonment should mean the
whole of the prisoner's life. The human rights and administrative implications
of 'whole-life' imprisonment are discussed in detail to support the view that life imprisonment should remain as is, that is, 20 years in
prison. The author draws inspiration from other domestic jurisdictions and
international law to support his argument. In particular, the author looks
at jurisprudence from Germany, South Africa, the International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia, the Special Court for Sierra Leone, the International Criminal
Court and the European Court of Human Rights. Where applicable,
the views of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights are
highlighted.International Bibliography of the Social Science
