On April 9, 2026, Sarah Birete, Executive Director of the Center for Constitutional Governance (CCG), called on the public to “light a candle for victims of political persecution in Uganda.” She added that courts must protect citizens’ rights “without playing politics.”

While emotionally compelling, the statement risks projecting an incomplete picture of the judiciary’s role and realities.

There is no doubt that courts must remain impartial and uphold constitutional freedoms. Judicial independence is essential to sustaining public trust and protecting democratic order.

However, framing symbolic candle-lighting as a response to alleged political persecution risks suggesting institutional failure without sufficiently acknowledging the judiciary’s continuing efforts to administer justice under difficult conditions.

Courts do not operate in a vacuum, they function within legal frameworks shaped by legislation, resource limitations, procedural safeguards, and broader political contexts.

Despite these constraints, they remain bound to evidence, due process, and constitutional interpretation not public sentiment or activist pressure.

Reducing the judiciary’s performance to symbolic gestures or rhetorical campaigns oversimplifies its constitutional mandate.

Courts are not arenas for slogans, they are institutions designed to interpret the law, resolve disputes fairly, and protect rights even when their decisions are unpopular or misunderstood.

Equally concerning is the casual invocation of terms such as “lawfare.” Allegations that legal systems are being weaponized for political purposes are serious and require evidence, specificity, and careful argument.

Broad claims without substantiation risk weakening confidence in institutions that often serve as citizens’ last line of defense.

Constructive criticism of the judiciary is both necessary and healthy in any democracy. But such criticism must be grounded in analysis of specific rulings, procedural shortcomings, or legislative gaps not symbolic narratives that unintentionally portray the courts as passive or complicit actors.

The judiciary’s strength lies precisely in its resistance to political pressure not in adapting itself to political expectations. Suggesting otherwise risks normalizing the very interference critics seek to challenge.

Symbolism can inspire attention. Reform, accountability, and institutional respect sustain justice.

Ultimately, public confidence in the courts is not strengthened by rhetoric alone, it is strengthened by balanced scrutiny, informed engagement, and recognition of the judiciary’s continuing role as a cornerstone of constitutional governance.