By Spy Uganda
In a case that could redefine the boundaries of state secrecy in Uganda, the High Court has directed the government to surrender for judicial inspection a trove of sensitive documents tied to a controversial vehicle surveillance initiative spearheaded by Russian firm Joint Stock Company Global Security.
This ruling not only breathes new life into a longstanding legal battle led by civil liberties organisation Legal Brains Trust but also ignites a broader conversation about the growing tension between state security measures and the public’s right to know.
The ruling, issued by Justice Boniface Wamala, follows years of stonewalling by state agencies over the Intelligent Transport Monitoring System (ITMS), a national vehicle tracking initiative that critics say was shrouded in opacity from inception.
At the heart of the court battle is whether a project with profound implications for personal privacy, data protection, and public finance can be implemented without public scrutiny. Legal Brains Trust, through its lead counsel Stanley Okecho, successfully argued that the government must disclose key documents including the memorandum of understanding, financial model, technical assessments, and due diligence reports relating to the ITMS.
The documents are to be produced within 60 days for judicial inspection — a ruling that could pave the way for more transparency in future public-private surveillance partnerships.
The ITMS project, first introduced by President Yoweri Museveni as part of a broader national security plan, involves installing tracking devices on every motor vehicle and motorcycle in Uganda. The government has justified the move by citing the need to tackle urban crime and terrorism, particularly in the wake of unsolved high-profile assassinations.
But civil society groups say the project is another example of creeping state surveillance disguised as public safety.
“The public has a right to know the cost, scope, and oversight structures of a project that will effectively place every Ugandan road user under constant digital monitoring,” said Okecho, following the ruling. “We’re setting a precedent that national security cannot be used as a cloak to hide corruption or poor governance.”
A key contention in the case is the handling of personal data. Legal Brains Trust argued that any foreign firm collecting and processing Ugandan citizens’ data must meet transparency standards under Uganda’s Data Protection and Privacy Act. The government, through an affidavit by Haji Yunus Kakande, resisted the application, citing national security and investor privacy.
However, Justice Wamala ruled that confidentiality cannot be claimed in the abstract — it must be proven. The judge stressed that the court retains powers to inspect such documents to assess the legitimacy of secrecy claims and determine if publication restrictions are warranted.
“The mere invocation of national security does not make a document immune from judicial scrutiny,” Wamala ruled, noting that no evidence had been produced to demonstrate how inspection would endanger state interests.
This judgment could become a landmark in Uganda’s growing debate over government transparency and public interest litigation. For Legal Brains Trust founder and exiled advocate Isaac Ssemakadde, the ruling is both a personal and professional victory.
“After four years in the trenches, this decision validates our struggle against institutional secrecy and unaccountable executive power,” Ssemakadde said. “It’s a lifeline for the rule of law and a beacon for anti-corruption advocacy.”
The ITMS’s financing model also raises eyebrows. The revenue-sharing arrangement—where the Russian contractor collects 70% of penalty-based income in the first two years—has prompted criticism from economists and governance experts. Critics argue such models encourage over-penalisation and revenue-driven enforcement rather than genuine safety enhancement.
Interestingly, this is not the first time the government has faced legal action over the ITMS. In 2021, lawyer Male Mabirizi sought similar disclosures but was denied. He later sued and was awarded Shs 5 million for violation of his right to information. That ruling, however, lacked the teeth to compel document production. Justice Wamala’s latest ruling goes further—setting judicial oversight over executive decisions.
With just 60 days to comply, the government now finds itself at a crossroads: produce the documents and confront scrutiny, or risk deepening public suspicion and judicial censure.
The court’s decision may not halt the ITMS rollout, but it will almost certainly reshape how such large-scale tech surveillance programs are negotiated and implemented in Uganda going forward. In an era where governments across Africa are racing to adopt digital control systems, this ruling serves as a stark reminder: national security may be paramount, but it must not be a smokescreen for secrecy.
