A growing chorus of concern over Uganda’s proposed Kadhi Courts Bill is stirring debate across religious and legal circles, with critics warning of potential implications for religious freedom even as supporters insist the legislation simply formalizes existing constitutional provisions.
Legal advocacy group ADF International cautioned that the bill could expand the role of Islamic law in ways that affect both Muslims and non-Muslims. In a recent statement, the group warned the proposal could “create a parallel legal system” and raise “serious concerns for religious freedom.”
“Uganda’s proposed Sharia courts bill would subject Christians and other non-Muslims to Islamic law, while undermining fundamental rights especially for women, children, and religious converts,” said Kelsey Zorzi, director of advocacy for global religious freedom at ADF International.
The group further argued that aspects of the bill could extend beyond voluntary participation.
“Non-Muslims could be drawn into the jurisdiction of these courts,” ADF stated, raising concerns about mixed-family cases and inheritance disputes.
These warnings have circulated widely, particularly among Christian communities, where questions about legal equality and freedom of belief remain central.
“We ask all Ugandans to speak out against the passage of the Kadhi Courts Bill,” Arthur Ayorekire, vice president of the Uganda Christian Lawyers’ Fraternity, said in the ADF International report. “The bill is not necessary and will only lead to legal uncertainty, tensions between religious groups, and potentially will allow extremism to grab a hold in Uganda.”
Yet within Uganda, the conversation is more layered. The Kadhi Courts Bill, first gazetted on Feb. 27, is now moving toward parliamentary consideration.
If passed, it would establish a formal system of Islamic courts to handle personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance and guardianship.
Supporters of the bill argue that this is not a new introduction of Islamic law, but the long-delayed implementation of a constitutional provision.
“The present Bill does not introduce Sharia into Uganda’s legal system,” wrote Mukasa Sirajeh Katantazi, a legal commentator and Muslim leader. Instead, he said, it seeks “to operationalize a constitutional provision that has remained dormant for over three decades.”
Uganda’s 1995 Constitution already provides for Kadhi courts under Article 129, though no comprehensive law has ever established how they should function in practice. Proponents say the current bill fills that gap.
Religious leaders within the Muslim community have also called for swift passage of the legislation. The Uganda Muslim Supreme Council has urged Parliament to fast-track the bill, describing it as a “long-awaited piece of legislation” that would strengthen access to justice for Muslims in personal matters.
Legal professionals echo that view. During a recent gathering in Kampala, Muslim lawyers were encouraged to prepare for the courts’ eventual rollout, with officials emphasizing that “justice remains a central pillar of Islamic legal tradition.”
To supporters, the bill is less about expansion and more about structure, bringing informal religious dispute resolution into a regulated legal framework.
Still, concerns persist over how the courts would operate in practice. Critics argue that the key issue is not whether such courts exist, but whether participation would remain strictly voluntary and confined to Muslims. ADF International has questioned whether safeguards in the bill are sufficient to prevent jurisdictional overreach, especially in cases involving individuals of different faiths.
“The proposed bill’s passage would represent a dangerous expansion of Sharia law into Sub-Saharan Africa at a time when Christian persecution is growing,” Zorzi said.
The debate has also revived broader questions about how religious law interacts with national legal systems, a tension not unique to Uganda.
In neighboring Kenya, a similar system of Kadhi courts is explicitly defined and limited by the Constitution. Article 170 of Kenya’s Constitution states that such courts have jurisdiction only in matters of “personal status, marriage, divorce or inheritance” and only where “all the parties profess the Muslim religion and submit” to the court’s authority.
This dual requirement of shared faith and voluntary submission, has been central to maintaining a balance between religious accommodation and constitutional equality.
Kenya’s experience has not been without controversy. The inclusion of Kadhi courts in the 2010 Constitution sparked strong opposition from some Christian leaders, who argued it blurred the line between religion and the state.
Over time, however, the system has functioned within clearly defined limits, serving a specific community without extending beyond its scope. That comparison now shapes much of the discussion in Uganda.
Supporters of the Kadhi Courts Bill point to Kenya as evidence that religious courts can coexist within a secular legal framework. Critics, however, argue that the Ugandan proposal must be scrutinized carefully to ensure it includes equally clear safeguards.
Katantazi acknowledged that the bill is not without flaws, noting that “clearer safeguards on voluntary submission” and stronger procedural protections would improve public confidence.
That acknowledgment highlights a rare point of convergence in an otherwise polarized debate: both supporters and critics agree that the details of the law will ultimately determine its impact.
For many observers, the issue goes beyond legal technicalities. At its core is a question about how a diverse society protects freedom of religion while maintaining equal treatment under the law.
Uganda’s legal system already accommodates customary law and religious practices in certain areas, reflecting a broader recognition of cultural and religious diversity.
The Kadhi Courts Bill, supporters argue, fits within that tradition. But critics remain cautious, emphasizing that any expansion of religious jurisdiction must be carefully balanced against constitutional guarantees.
