In a dramatic legal twist, the Ugandan government has moved swiftly to invoke the Transfer of Convicted Offenders Act in a bid to repatriate convicted High Court Judge Lydia Mugambe from the United Kingdom, just weeks before her sentencing at Oxford Crown Court scheduled for May 2, 2025. The diplomatic maneuver, formalized through Statutory Instrument No. 37 of 2025, gazetted on April 14, comes at a critical moment in what has become one of the most high-profile international criminal cases involving a senior Ugandan judicial figure.
On March 13, 2025, the Oxford Crown Court found Mugambe guilty on four serious charges: trafficking a Ugandan woman to the UK under false pretenses, engaging in forced labour, committing an immigration offense, and conspiring to intimidate a witness. The gravity of these convictions placed her at risk of facing a potentially severe sentence, possibly even capital punishment, under the UK’s rarely applied but extant provisions for extraordinary crimes.
Now, through Statutory Instrument No. 37 of 2025 – The Transfer of Convicted Offenders (Application of Act to the United Kingdom) Instrument, signed by Justice and Constitutional Affairs Minister Norbert Mao on April 3 and officially gazetted on April 14, Uganda and the UK have formally established a bilateral legal framework for the mutual transfer of convicted individuals. Uganda’s request seeks to have Mugambe return home to serve her sentence, a move that could spare her the harshest penalties and shift the course of her post-conviction fate.
International legal frameworks—including the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, and the UK’s own Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984—provide room for such transfers, but not without procedural hurdles. The UK’s Justice Secretary retains discretionary powers to approve or reject the request, weighing factors such as the public interest, the seriousness of the crime, and the human rights standards guaranteed upon transfer. Legal observers note that Mugambe’s pre-sentencing status may complicate the decision, as transfers are typically considered post-sentencing.
If denied, Mugambe’s legal defense could turn to alternative remedies, including appeals to higher UK courts or invoking protections under the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly Articles 2 and 3, which prohibit inhumane treatment and protect the right to life. With international diplomacy now tightly interwoven with legal strategy, the UK government’s response to Uganda’s urgent request will determine whether Judge Mugambe’s fate is sealed in Britain—or rewritten on Ugandan soil.
