KAMPALA- The Uganda Medical Association (UMA) has rejected the Forensic Evidence Bill, 2024, calling for its withdrawal for further refinement.
The association argues that while the Bill is titled “Forensic Evidence,” it focuses primarily on DNA testing and poisoning, neglecting other essential aspects of medical forensic practices.
This stance was presented by Dr. Simeon Eloba, a Lecturer in Pathology at Mbarara University of Science and Technology during his appearance before Parliament’s Defence and Internal Affairs Committee, which is currently scrutinizing the proposed Bill.
Dr. Eloba criticized the Bill for excluding critical forensic fields, such as computer crime, arguing that it should be redefined to encompass all forensic practices, not just DNA and poisoning.
Dr. Eloba pointed out the restrictive nature of the Bill regarding DNA testing, noting that DNA is sometimes used in civil matters, not just criminal investigations.
He stressed that forensic evidence should not be confined to criminal cases alone.
Dr. John Barugahare, a bioethics expert at Makerere University, proposed that the Directorate of Government Analytical Laboratories (DGAL) should serve as a secondary point of reference for reanalyzing forensic evidence rather than being the primary body for DNA testing.
Dr. Herbert Luswata, President of the UMA, led the association’s objections, pointing out several flaws in the Bill. UMA expressed concerns over the validity of the existing DNA database.
The association argued that DNA samples collected before the enactment of the proposed law should be excluded, as they were gathered without proper guidelines and protocols.
The UMA also raised alarm over the Bill’s overlap with existing legislation, such as the Agricultural Chemicals Control Act, the National Environmental Management Act, and the National Drug Authority Act.
Dr. Luswata warned that this overlap could create confusion and place excessive responsibility on the DGAL, potentially overwhelming its capacity to manage all aspects of forensic evidence.
Dr. Luswata echoed Dr. Eloba’s concerns, stating that the Bill does not adequately consider the complexities of the medical field.
“The Bill’s definitions and scope need to be clarified. It should explicitly state that the Analytical Forensic Laboratory is focused on criminal and prosecutorial purposes. The current, broad definitions risk giving the Ministry of Internal Affairs authority over all laboratories, conflicting with the mandates of other relevant government bodies,” he concluded.
The UMA has called for a comprehensive review of the Forensic Evidence Bill to ensure that it properly addresses the full scope of forensic science and its practical applications in the medical and legal fields.
