Two Kenyan human-rights activists — Bob Njagi and Nicholas Oyoo — who disappeared in Uganda in early October 2025, have suffered a major legal setback. The High Court of Uganda in Kampala has dismissed a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus, ruling that there is no proof the men are in state custody. The court instead advised the petitioners to treat the issue as a missing-persons case, marking a major blow to efforts to trace the two men.
This ruling, delivered by Justice Simon Peter Kinobe, has ignited anger among human-rights organisations and strained diplomatic relations between Kenya and Uganda.
How the Disappearance Began
The two activists travelled from Kenya to Uganda in late September 2025 to monitor an opposition campaign rally for Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu, better known as Bobi Wine, in the eastern Ugandan district of Kaliro.
According to eyewitness accounts, Njagi and Oyoo were at a petrol station in Kireka, near Kampala, on October 1 when armed men — some in military uniform, others in plain clothes — surrounded and abducted them.
Family members later reported that both men’s phones were switched off soon after the incident. Since then, they have received no calls, messages or ransom demands. Several rights organisations say the abduction appeared “coordinated” and bore hallmarks of a state-linked operation.
The First Legal Step
In response to public pressure, Justice Kinobe initially ordered the Ugandan government on October 14 to produce the two men — “dead or alive” — within seven days or explain their whereabouts. However, when the deadline expired, the Uganda Police Force, Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) and Chief of Defence Intelligence all claimed they had no record of the activists.
Despite denials, families and colleagues insisted that Njagi and Oyoo were victims of enforced disappearance, a violation under international law. The families then filed a habeas corpus petition to compel the government to account for them formally.
Court’s Findings
In its written judgment dated October 23 2025, the High Court dismissed the habeas corpus application, finding no evidence of state custody.
Justice Kinobe outlined three major findings:
- No Evidence of Detention:
The respondents — police, military and intelligence — categorically denied holding the two men. - No Records of Arrest or Detention:
A review of all military and police facilities found no entry for Njagi or Oyoo. - Insufficient Proof by Petitioners:
The court ruled that the petitioners had not provided convincing evidence that the state had custody of the activists when the writ was filed.
Because no proof linked the state directly to their disappearance, Justice Kinobe classified the pair as missing persons, whose whereabouts and status — alive or dead — remain unknown. He advised families to file missing-person reports instead of pursuing habeas corpus proceedings.
In his remarks, the judge added pointedly:
“One cannot squeeze blood from a stone. The state can only produce what it has.”
The case was therefore dismissed without costs, meaning neither party would bear financial penalties.
Human-Rights Reaction
The ruling triggered outrage from civil-society groups and human-rights defenders. Organisations such as Freedom Hive Uganda and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) condemned the decision, calling it a serious setback in the fight against enforced disappearances in East Africa.
They argued that Uganda’s courts had missed an opportunity to demand transparency from security agencies frequently accused of arbitrary detentions. One lawyer representing the petitioners said:
“When the state can make people vanish and simply deny custody, habeas corpus loses meaning. This ruling weakens one of the strongest legal protections for personal liberty.”
Human-rights advocates have vowed to appeal the decision and to escalate the case to international bodies.
Kenya’s Response and Diplomatic Fallout
In Kenya, the ruling provoked anger and concern. The Kenyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed that it had contacted Uganda for clarification and requested immediate information on the activists’ fate.
Protests erupted in Nairobi, led by fellow activists demanding that the Kenyan government take a firmer stance. Demonstrators outside the Foreign Affairs Ministry carried placards reading “Bring Them Home” and “End Cross-Border Abductions.”
Behind closed doors, diplomatic sources revealed that the incident has caused tension between Nairobi and Kampala, two countries that normally maintain close economic and political ties. Kenya’s opposition leaders accused Uganda of targeting foreign observers sympathetic to Bobi Wine’s political movement, while Ugandan officials dismissed those allegations as “politically motivated rumours.”
Legal and Political Implications
The case reveals much more than two missing individuals; it underscores the fragile state of freedom, accountability, and justice in the region.
First, it highlights the limits of habeas corpus when the state denies having a person in custody. Legally, courts can only compel the production of individuals if custody is proven. This loophole, critics say, allows security agencies to operate “off-the-books.”
Second, the case exposes risks faced by cross-border activists within the East African Community (EAC). While EAC treaties guarantee free movement, the reality shows that activists may face arbitrary arrest or disappearance when they engage in political work outside their home countries.
Third, the ruling adds to a growing body of evidence that Uganda’s civil-military relations remain opaque. Human-rights observers point to recurring disappearances, secret detentions, and intimidation of dissenters as symptoms of weak oversight.
Why the Case Matters
1. Deterrent for Activists
Njagi and Oyoo’s disappearance will likely discourage other activists from operating regionally. It sends a chilling message that borders offer no safety when powerful political interests are threatened.
2. Erosion of Legal Safeguards
By dismissing the habeas corpus petition, Uganda’s judiciary may unintentionally erode public trust in courts as defenders of liberty. If disappearances can occur without recourse, victims and families lose faith in legal systems meant to protect them.
3. Damage to Uganda’s International Image
The case raises serious questions about Uganda’s commitment to human-rights standards and transparency. Donors and international partners may interpret the court’s inaction as tolerance of impunity.
Next Steps and Outlook
The petitioners were advised to file a missing-persons report with the Ugandan Police. Civil-society groups are now pushing for an independent commission to investigate abductions and disappearances.
Meanwhile, the Kenyan government has vowed to maintain diplomatic pressure until the men are found. The UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances has been notified, and international human-rights observers have urged Uganda to permit independent inquiries.
Activists believe international attention could help secure transparency, or at least prevent future incidents. Some are also calling for regional legal reform, including a shared EAC protocol to address cross-border arrests and detentions.
Still, optimism is scarce. Families of the missing men remain in agony, their lives consumed by uncertainty. Every phone call brings a flicker of hope that has yet to be realised.
Conclusion
The dismissal of the habeas corpus petition for Kenyan activists Bob Njagi and Nicholas Oyoo underscores the limits of legal recourse in cases of disappearance. The Ugandan High Court may have acted within legal bounds, yet the decision deepens fears of state impunity and regional insecurity.
For the families, justice remains distant. For activists across East Africa, the case serves as a grim reminder of the risks attached to dissent.
Unless Uganda acts transparently and swiftly to trace the missing men, the ruling will stand as a warning of how political repression can thrive in silence.
