Parliament is poised to debate the controversial Forensic Evidence Bill, 2024, which proposes the establishment of a National DNA Database to store citizens’ DNA profiles.
The government argues that the law will enhance the regulation and use of forensic science in criminal investigations and prosecutions. However, critics warn it could infringe on personal privacy and expose citizens to potential misuse of their genetic information.
Central to the Bill is the creation of the National DNA Database, an electronic repository managed by the Directorate of Government Analytical Laboratory. The database aims to improve legal proceedings by facilitating efficient criminal investigations and ensuring compliance with forensic science standards.
The Bill provides for DNA profiling services, the collection and analysis of bodily samples, and protocols for storing and expunging DNA profiles.
Under the proposed law, DNA profiles of suspects must be deleted within three years if no charges are filed or if the individual is acquitted. Volunteer DNA profiles will be retained only with explicit consent and must be erased within three months after case closure unless otherwise agreed. These measures, the Bill states, aim to uphold transparency and accountability.
Despite these assurances, privacy advocates express concerns about potential overreach. Without a Genetic Non-Discrimination Act to protect citizens, critics argue the Bill could enable state agencies to misuse DNA data. Such legislation typically prohibits the collection, use, or disclosure of genetic information without written consent.
“The absence of a comprehensive privacy framework raises questions about how far the state might go to access and use this sensitive data,” said a privacy rights activist.
The Bill also criminalizes unauthorized use of DNA data, imposing penalties of up to UGX 30 million or 15 years in prison. Government Chief Whip Denis Hamson Obua, who tabled the Bill, emphasized its intent to modernize forensic services and ensure justice. However, public apprehension persists over the balance between enhancing security and safeguarding individual rights.
The debate is set to test Uganda’s commitment to both technological advancement and the protection of fundamental freedoms.