Uganda has introduced legislation that would create a state-anchored system of Islamic courts. The so-called Kadhi courts would rule on key areas of private life under Sharia law, including marriage, divorce, custody and inheritance. The proposal has drawn strong criticism because it goes far beyond a purely administrative addition.
Observers warn of a far-reaching shift in the legal system. Organizations such as ADF International say the Kadhi courts could create a parallel system of justice that extends beyond Muslims alone. One of the most contentious points is that Christians and other non-Muslims could also be drawn into such proceedings if a Muslim party brings a case before the courts. In practice, that would mean anyone involved in a family dispute could suddenly find themselves before a judge applying Sharia law, regardless of their own religious affiliation.
Parallel Justice System and Growing Pressure on Christians
The criticism comes against an already tense backdrop. Christians have for years reported increasing pressure and discrimination in parts of the country. The introduction of a legal framework shaped by religion in key areas would deepen those concerns. The treatment of converts is particularly sensitive. In classical interpretations of Sharia, apostasy is not recognized, a point that critics see as a serious threat to religious freedom.
The implications for women and children are also under scrutiny. In many interpretations of Sharia, different standards apply to men and women, for example in custody decisions or in the weight given to witness testimony. Experience in Nigeria shows that such systems can come into conflict with state law, including in the protection of minors and the prohibition of early marriage.
Debate Over Constitutionality and African Precedents
Legal experts in Uganda also warn that religious law would, for the first time, be formally embedded in the state system. The issue is no longer informal dispute resolution, but binding jurisdiction with far-reaching consequences for legal certainty and relations between religious groups.
Supporters reject the criticism. Representatives of the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council argue that the country’s constitution already provides for such courts. The bill, they say, merely implements a mandate that has existed for decades and establishes clear rules for a system that has so far operated informally.
A comparison with Kenya shows, however, that such models can be designed differently. There, Kadhi courts are limited to Muslims and their use is voluntary. Those restrictions are largely absent from the Ugandan proposal.
Uganda therefore faces a fundamental decision. The question is not only about new courts, but about how much space religious law, specifically Sharia, should occupy within a state system. Critics see a significant risk for Christians and other minorities in an already fragile environment.